i DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Children’s Court: creating a more relational approach to protection and care proceedings ALANA D. THOMPSON This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia Discipline of Social Work and Social Policy School of Social and Cultural Studies and Law School University of Western Australia 2011
323
Embed
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Children’s …...in the viability of therapeutic jurisprudence and the Children’s Court as a thesis topic from the first time we spoke about it,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
i
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Children’s Court: creating a more relational approach to protection and
care proceedings
ALANA D. THOMPSON
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia
Discipline of Social Work and Social Policy
School of Social and Cultural Studies and
Law School University of Western Australia
2011
ii
ABSTRACT The focus of this thesis is deeply practical insofar as it examines how existing laws, practices and procedures can be more therapeutically applied in the Children’s Court. The research is situated within a contested public policy arena in which multiple calls are being made to move the child protection system towards a more holistic and less incident-based response. The purpose of the research was to assess how the Children’s Court of Western Australia and its legal response to families in adversity could be more therapeutic. It grew out of the need to deal with the now well-established critique in the Australian research, numerous inquiries and scholarly literature about the impact that the adversarial legal system has on court participants. Therapeutic jurisprudence has been used as a template for this research as it teases out the therapeutic and non-therapeutic potential of the laws and practices in the Children’s Court.
In this thesis, the contemporary legal context within which child protection operates is described, and the key challenges and controversies facing contemporary child protection systems around Australia are outlined. A comprehensive account is provided of the core tensions that are articulated in the literature, that suggest the traditional adversarial model of law may be an ineffective remedy for the often long-term and complex individual and family problems seen in the Children’s Court. The way in which therapeutic jurisprudence has emerged in response to many of these tensions is described.
By means of semi-structured interviews with parents and families, magistrates, lawyers and court staff, and participant observation of the Children’s Court, the experiences and perspectives of the people involved in the court were obtained.
The findings focus on the potential for change at the ‘micro’ (procedural level), ‘meso’ (policy) and ‘macro’ (conceptual) levels. The central finding of this research is that therapeutic jurisprudence can redefine the functioning of the child protection legal process, and can offer an alternative approach to legal practice therein based on a model that encourages respect, validation, voice, self-determination, relationships and supports conciliation and restoration. Most importantly, the thesis finds that parents and families are powerfully placed to inform this process of change.
iii
Title i. Abstract ii. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ix.
Acknowledgements x.
Statement of Candidate Contribution xi.
Glossary xii.
Prelude xvi.
PART 1: THE RESEARCHED
Chapter One - INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context 1
(i) The intersection of social policy and the law 4
(ii) The changing face of the law 7
(iii) The emergence of therapeutic jurisprudence 9
1.2 The study intent 11
1.3 Research questions 11
1.4 Significance 11
1.5 Presentation of this thesis 13
Chapter Two - LEGAL SYSTEMS
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 The Australian legal system 15
(i) Snapshot of the Australian legal landscape 16
(ii) Adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems 19
(iii)Tensions within the system of common law 22
iv
2.3 Statutory basis of child protection in Australia 25
(i) Role and structure of the Children’s Court 25
(ii) Child protection legislation at a glance: principles, provisions
and regulations 27
(iii) Protection applications and protection orders 35
(iv) Legal representation in the Children’s Court 37
(v) Court process 40
2.4 Summary 43
Chapter Three - CHILD PROTECTION IN AUSTRALIA: A BROKEN SYSTEM
3.1 Introduction 45
3.2 Ideas and ideology of child welfare in western English-speaking countries 46
3.3 The current status of child protection in Australia: a system in crisis 48
3.4 Tensions and alternative approaches in child welfare decision-making 56
3.5 The voice and perspective of the consumer 65
(i) Vulnerable parents and families 65
(ii) Indigenous children and families 68
(iii) Culturally and linguistically diverse children and families 73
(iv) Hearing the complex consumer voice 74
3.6 Summary 79
Chapter Four - THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE: AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH
4.1 Introduction 80
4.2 The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence 83
4.3 Micro- meso- and macro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence 88
4.4 Applying therapeutic jurisprudence in practice 90
(i) Problem-solving courts 91
v
(ii) Justice architecture 94
(iii) Family law and child welfare 96
4.5 Summary 101
PART 2: THE RESEARCHING
Chapter Five - CONCEPTUALISING THE STUDY: THE THINKING AND DOING
5.1 Introduction 103
5.2 Research Questions 103
5.3 Designing the research: a theoretical framework 104
(i) Data collection 105
(ii) Sampling 116
(iii) The ethics of researching 121
(iv) Data analysis 123
5.4 My research journey 128
5.5 Summary 137
PART 3: THE RESEARCH Chapter Six - PEOPLE AND THE PROCESS OF LAW
6.1 Introduction 139
6.2 Trauma 140
6.3 Invisibility and silence 143
6.4 Stress 145
6.5 Intimidation 146
6.6 Confusion 148
6.7 The need for support and advocacy 150
6.8 Summary 151
vi
Chapter Seven - PARTICIPATION IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM
7.1 Introduction 152
7.2 Communication and time 153
7.3 Nature of the court process 159
7.4 The pre-hearing conference process 168
7.5 The role of the magistrate 177
7.6 Provision of information 181
7.7 Nature of negotiations 184
7.8 Locating the protection and care jurisdiction 186
7.9 Summary 190
Chapter Eight - ACCESS TO JUSTICE
8.1 Introduction 193
8.2 The concept of ‘access to justice’ 194
8.3 Legal assistance 197
8.4 Court resources 208
8.5 Rigidity vs. flexibility 215
8.6 Legislative considerations 218
8.7 Summary 221
Chapter Nine - CONCLUSION
9.1 Introduction 224
9.2 A synthesis of the main findings 226
9.3 The need for macro level change 232
(i) Culture of adversarialism 232
(ii) The centrality of power in the Children’s Court 233
(iii) The way forward — an ethic of care and the law 234
vii
REFERENCES 238
APPENDICES A. Protection orders in Western Australia 284
B. Flowchart of court process for contested cases in the Children's Court 286
C. Flowchart of court process for consented cases in the Children's Court 287
D. Overview of child protection process in Australia 288
E. Information Sheet 289
F. Participant Consent Form 292
G. Email requesting interview with magistrates 294
H. Interview framework — magistrates, lawyers and court staff 295
I. Interview framework — parents and families 297
J. Human Subjects Research Ethics Approval Form 299
K. Overview of process for child protection notification in WA 301
L. Email requesting interview with lawyers and court staff 302
M. Factors to be considered in determining 'best interests of the child' (WA) 303
viii
TABLES
Table 1. Profile of participants in the sample 120
FIGURES
Figure 1. Number of children and young people on protection orders at 30 June
2005-09 55
Figure 2. Comparison of traditional court process and transformed court process 93
Figure 3. Comparison of approaches adopted by traditional judicial officers and
problem-solving judicial officers 179
ix
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to parents everywhere who are struggling to keep their families
together against the odds, and to the 1893 children on care and protection orders in
Western Australia.
And to my family – my husband, Chris Phillips, for his patience, support and
understanding, and our loving daughter, Stella Amaya Phillips, for the life that awaits
her.
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My key acknowledgement is to the patience, commitment and support of my supervisors, Associate Professor Maria Harries, and Dr Tracey Summerfield of the University of Western Australia. Their guidance, enthusiasm and interest in this research area from the very beginning through to the many hours it took to carry out this research to its conclusion, have been a constant source of motivation and have continued to bolster me throughout. Maria, you believed in the viability of therapeutic jurisprudence and the Children’s Court as a thesis topic from the first time we spoke about it, and you never wavered in your support of me as both a student and new mother. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of many people working in the Perth Children’s Court, the magistrates, the registry staff and particularly the President of the Court, Judge Denis Reynolds. My thanks go to the Judge, who allowed his Court to serve as the research site, and was graciously accommodating and supportive of this research from the beginning. Thanks also go to all those persons who agreed to be interviewed and gave their time to share their stories and perspectives. I would also like to thank Judge Alex Calabrese of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York for introducing me to the world of therapeutic jurisprudence and to its cross-disciplinary application. My thanks also go to Donna Laikind of the Ackerman Institute for the Family in New York, and the late Dr Wayne Myers of Columbia University who both encouraged my interest in this research. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance and support from colleagues and staff at the University of Western Australia, particularly Rosa Catalano, Jenny Golding and Karen Upton-Davis. I would like to acknowledge Eugenia Koussidis for her patience, efficiency and thoroughness in conducting the editing and proofreading of this thesis. I would like to thank a number of people for their friendship over the years this thesis was written. To Margaret and Tony Phillips, and to a number of generous women in my life who have offered friendship, encouragement and patience and whom I wish to acknowledge – I am indeed very lucky and with all my heart thank Annalise Thompson, Jo Gibson, Penny Morgan, Kathryn Kubicki, Rachael Hartley and Olivia Woodland. My sister, Annalise Thompson has been my cheerleader, friend and source of constant encouragement and I will forever be grateful for her love and unfailing loyalty. I am personally indebted to my parents, John and Soosie Thompson, whose respect for academic endeavours and support of my own particular interests made this project possible. I am ever mindful of the opportunities I have gained through their example of hard work and commitment. Your help and support to Chris and I, and particularly your adoring love and dedication to your little ‘cucu perumpuan’ has enabled this to happen. Last, but never least, I would like to acknowledge my husband, Chris Phillips, who was my unfailing support, my gentle encourager and the most wonderful and loving father to our little Stella. You lived with my weekend absences for the past year while I spent time writing in the library. And to Stella — you have provided us with the greatest joy and happiness. Your presence within the past two years of PhD-land has been the greatest light and reason to complete the task! I hope you never lose your wonderful curiosity that leads your never ending “what” and “why” questions. Thank you Chris and Stella, my wonderful family, for making it all worthwhile.
xi
DECLARATION FOR THESES CONTAINING PUBLISHED WORK AND/OR WORK
PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION
Please sign the statement below.
This thesis does not contain work that I have published, nor work under review for publication.
Student Signature……………………………………………………………………………
xii
GLOSSARY Adjournment When a magistrate puts the case off to a later court date Adversarial A system in civil law where two sides argue their case Applicant The person or organisation who applies to the Court for an order: this is usually the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection Affidavit A written statement of facts made under oath or
affirmation, which may be used as evidence
Care Plan A written plan that identifies the needs of the child and outlines the steps and measures that need to be taken to meet these. A Care Plan also sets out the decisions for placement and contact CEO Chief Executive Officer Child A person who is under the age of 18 years Contact Contact between a child and another person, usually a
parent. It can involve face-to-face contact or contact by telephone or letter. This was previously referred to as ‘access’
Convenor A person appointed by the court to manage a pre-hearing conference
DCP Department for Child Protection
Directions Instructions by a judge or magistrate about how a case is
to proceed. These may include dates for filing of documents, conferences and the hearing
File To lodge a document in the registry of the court and have it accepted for filing by the court Filing The process when official documents (such as case
outlines and applications) are handed into the court registry
First court date The date and time marked on DCP’s protection application for the parents to first appear at the Children’s Court
xiii
Foster care Home-based care provided under statutory care and protection legislation for children and young people Guardianship A legal guardian is responsible for all decision-making regarding the child or young person Hearing A final hearing is where all of the parties present their
witnesses and evidence they will use, to help the court decide what should happen to the child. Lawyers may attend the hearing to represent the parties, DCP, the parents or carers of the child and/or the child
Initial legal assistance When a lawyer advocates or negotiates a matter for a
client, without having to lodge formal court proceedings or commence litigation
Judicial Officer Either a judge or a magistrate who is listed to hear the case. A judge usually deals with longer or more complex cases Judiciary The system of courts of justice and the personnel, such as judges, who are involved in making judgments Jurisdiction The extent of authority to make judgments and administer justice Legal advice The application of legal information to the individual
circumstances a person is facing. Legal advice can be given face-to-face, by telephone or, in some cases, by email
Legal representation Covers services provided by legal professionals that go beyond initial legal advice, for example drafting documents (e.g. wills, contracts), representing a person in a legal matter, preparing documents for court appearances (e.g. statements of claim, affidavits), and representing people in court and tribunal processes
Legislation The process of making or enacting a law in written form;
or the collective body of enacted laws Mediation A system using a neutral person to help two parties in a
dispute to come to an agreement or settlement without going to court
xiv
Mention A court date where routine administrative issues are discussed and dealt with by the parties and magistrate Order A command or direction by a court Party Each person who is named on the application is called a party PHC Pre-Hearing Conference Plain language legal information Generic material written about legal issues that people
might face. Plain language legal information provides ‘jargon free’ information about specific laws, legal problems or legal processes, or about where to get legal advice or representation.
Procedural orders Instructions (sometimes referred to as Directions) from the court about what each party must do and when. The purpose of these orders is to ensure that the case is properly prepared for each stage of the court process, so that the case is resolved as quickly and cheaply as possible
Pre-hearing conference A confidential discussion that takes place at the court,
involving the parties, their lawyers and a magistrate or convenor to try and reach an agreement
Protection application DCP can apply to the Children’s Court for a protection order if it appears to DCP that a child is in need of protection
Respondent When an application is made, one or more persons
against whom orders are sought are named on the application. Respondents are usually the parents or guardians of the child and any person who may have caused the child to be in need in of protection
Response A response may be filed by a respondent in answer to the
applicant’s affidavit and/or case outline Serve To formally provide documents to the other party Statutory intervention Court-approved removal of children from the custody of
parents and the provision of alternative foster care Submissions Arguments presented to the court to persuade the court to
make the orders that a particular party wants
xv
Subpoena A document issued by the court that requires a person to appear at a court to give evidence or produce documents
Taken into care Removal of a child from normal carers by DCP and taken
into provisional protection and care when authorised by the court
The Act Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA)
Trial The final hearing of a matter before a judicial officer
considers all the evidence presented, and makes a final decision or protection order to finalise the matter
Ward A term that was used under the now repealed Child
Welfare Act 1947 to refer to children and young people for whom the DCP has assumed parenting responsibilities
Wellbeing of a child The care, development, health and safety of a child Young person A child who is aged between 12 and 17 years
xvi
PRELUDE
PART ONE: THE RESEARCHED
The first part of this thesis outlines the impetus and motivation for this research. The
research aims are introduced, and the broader policy frameworks in which this thesis is
set are outlined. The overarching goal of Part One is to act as a container in which the
intersection of social policy and the law, and changes in the law can be explored.
Chapter 1 introduces new ways of thinking about the law, and new areas of
multidisciplinary scholarship including restorative justice, preventive law, community
justice and therapeutic jurisprudence are discussed. The way in which therapeutic
jurisprudence has emerged, the creation of problem-solving courts, alternative dispute
resolution processes including mediation and administrative tribunals, and changes to
legislation – all of which are seen as part of a significant shift from traditional legal
responses towards a more comprehensive resolution of human problems — are also
explored.
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 present relevant background literature that locates the research. The
Australian legal system and the statutory basis of child protection in Australia and its
working relationship with the Children’s Court are described, in order to explain the
contemporary legal context within which child protection operates.
The key challenges facing contemporary child protection systems around Australia are
outlined, and core tensions evident in the research literature about the way the law
responds to child protection matters are described. The complex consumer voice that has
emerged in recent years, which arguably is central to informing policies and practices
that will benefit children, young people and families and are critical to guiding the
delivery of services, is also included in Part One of this thesis.
This discussion sets the stage for the reasons that the traditional legal response to the
issue of child welfare and protection needs to change. The discussion provides a
xvii
backdrop against which the theory and application of therapeutic jurisprudence at a
micro, meso and macro level are presented.
PART TWO: THE RESEARCHING
Part Two is about how the research was conceptualised. It is a description of the
‘thinking’ and the ‘doing’, the method and the journey. The research design, its
epistemology and methodology are described. The ethics of researching, including
specific ethical and relational issues, are considered.
Drawing on the professional thinking and action that guides the social work profession,
the template I used during the research was based on a micro, meso and macro
distinction to structure the application of therapeutic jurisprudence in the Children’s
Court at different levels. Data were analysed using the Wexler (1995) and Brooks
(1999) micro- and macro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence distinction, and I included a
meso level to reflect general observations made of the court and its functioning. My goal
was to structure the findings in terms of micro, meso and macro considerations of the
application of therapeutic jurisprudence in the Children’s Court.
Drawing on my observational material, I also tell the story of my research journey. A
description of the people and place of the court is presented in order to capture the
research arena of the Perth Children’s Court. My presence in the chaos of the court, and
how I obtained a snapshot in time of these families’ lives is considered. The complexity
of this research and what it meant to me is explored.
PART THREE: THE RESEARCH
Part Three presents my analysis of the findings. I bring together the data collected
through observations and interviews, and present these in the form of a collage of views.
A range of themes connected to people, process and law, and access to justice emerged
from the interview and observation data when gathered and analysed. In discussing the
themes and data, in order to understand processes and outcomes, I move between the
accounts provided by parents, family members, lawyers, magistrates and court staff and
xviii
my own observations.
Chapter 6 presents the stories of what parents and families told me about their
experiences of the child protection legal and court process. These stories are
predominantly about their feelings, and as such have been framed around the feelings
articulated by them relating to: trauma; invisibility and silence; stress; intimidation;
confusion; support and advocacy needs.
Whereas the voices of parents and families focused on feelings and emotions, the voices
and perspectives of the magistrates, legal representatives and court staff who were
interviewed related more to ‘issues of concern’ which arose through working in the
system. The four key issues of concern that were identified from these latter interviews
related predominantly to legislative processes, court practices, the legal representation of
parents and children, and the current jurisdictional arrangements for the management of
child welfare issues in Western Australia, topics which are all explored in Chapter 7 and
Chapter 8.
In chapters 7 and 8, I use a therapeutic jurisprudence framework to consider many of the
issues that were raised in interviews and observations in the light of two overarching
concepts that are central to therapeutic jurisprudence and that were discussed in detail in
Chapter 4 — participation in the legal system and access to justice. The way in which
people participate in the legal system and their capacity to access justice has an inherent
impact on their experience of the justice system and the court as an institution.
Therapeutic jurisprudence focuses on these very interactions between people and the
law. In chapters 7 and 8, I am privileging the voices of research participants and
drawing on observations, as it is what they said, and what I observed, that are informing
my analysis rather than the therapeutic jurisprudence literature.
While the notions of participation and access to justice are related, I have separated the
concepts. Participation in the legal system in the context of the Children’s Court relates
predominantly to micro procedural and process issues, and the roles of legal actors.
xix
These issues might include what happens in the waiting room areas, what happens in the
mention list process, the pre-hearing conferences and in a trial. Access to justice on the
other hand relates more to general observations of the court and its functioning.
Chapter 7 therefore explores the participation of parents and families appearing in child-
protection court proceedings in Western Australia. This chapter presents the first set of
findings within a framework of ‘participation in the legal system’. The discussion
concentrates on issues of overcoming delays within the court process, the nature and
formality of proceedings, and the organisation, structure and administration of the court.
All of the material presented in Chapter 7 points to broader meso level considerations
about the court and its functioning including issues of access to justice, and access to
legal representation, the courts and support. Chapter 8 therefore presents the second set
of findings within a framework of ‘access to justice’ issues for parents and families. The
discussion concentrates on issues around access to legal assistance, court resources,
service delivery approaches and legislative considerations.
The primary consideration for this research is about practices and processes in the
Children’s Court. The bulk of procedural considerations that take place in child-
protection court proceedings sit in chapters 7 and 8. Findings presented in these chapters
indicate there are many ways in which components of the Children’s Court can be
improved at the micro and meso level to reflect a more enhanced therapeutic
jurisprudence practice. It is noted that all of the concepts presented in Chapter 8 sit
within a much larger context of macro issues, such as existing court culture,
relationships of power, space and ethics.
Chapter 9 presents a synthesis of the major findings. In this chapter, I analyse all of this
material with a view to the therapeutic jurisprudence literature, and the findings are
placed within the broader context of this scholarly literature. In this chapter, I suggest
that change is also required at a macro conceptual level, most notably in relation to the
nature and place of the law, cultural practice in the Children’s Court, and ethics in the
xx
practice of law. It is noted that exploring such macro level change presents an exciting
opportunity for future research.
Central to this thesis is the way in which a collage of voices and experiences of the
people of the court is interwoven through the discussion and analysis chapters. These
voices are central to this research in finding the answers as to what works in meeting the
needs of children and families who appear in the Children’s Court in Western Australia.
2005). Much of this literature suggests that child-protection court proceedings are
predominantly aggressive and adversarial, with the process highlighting all alleged
inadequacies and failures by the parents. Of particular concern is that the nature of this
process can set up a strained relationship between the parents and child protection
6
workers from the outset, and can lead to the parents feeling further alienated from the
process.
The relationship between parents and child protection workers is a key issue of concern
consistently identified in the literature. Freymond’s (2003) study on Mothers’ Everyday
Realities and Child Placement Experiences found that in situations when a child was
removed from the care of their parents or caregiver and placed into State care, families
were engaged by child protection workers in a highly adversarial manner that set the
tone for working relationships where mistrust and fear were central. Research on The
Experiences of Parents and Families of Children and Young People in Care conducted
in Western Australia by Harries (2008) found that most participants in that study
described the legal and court systems they confronted as overwhelming, frightening,
confusing and alienating. The powerlessness expressed by many participants in that
study related in some part to the entire legal process, not simply court proceedings in
which they found themselves.
Australian research indicates that the nature of the legal and court process in child
welfare decision-making can be anti-therapeutic and further traumatising for children
and parents. Researchers who have considered the impact of the Children’s Court
processes have highlighted the need for more research in this area (McConnell et al.,
2000; Swain et al., 2002; King, 2005). It is clear from the literature that the way in
which the law has traditionally been invoked to deal with issues of social concern,
particularly relating to family and children’s issues, can often have serious and
unintended negative consequences.
The past few decades have seen the law change in relation to emerging social issues,
increasing public pressure, and the need to address more recent concerns such as how
criminal matters are addressed. The following section will describe in greater detail
some of the changes seen in the law.
7
(ii) The changing face of the law
A number of broad social changes have occurred in Australia over the past decades that
have included the reorganisation of publicly funded welfare, a decline in full-time
permanent employment, increases in the number of post-separation and blended
families, and the ageing of the Australian population (McAllister, Dowrick, Hassan,
2003; Roach Anleu, 2010). Social concerns such as unemployment, drug addiction,
welfare dependency, homelessness, mental illness and suicide have subsequently
worsened as a result of these broad social changes (Roach Anleu & Mack, 2006).
The law has often been used as a route, a resource, or strategy to implement desired
social change. The Victims’ Rights movement and the subsequent changes in the law
that increased the emphasis on restoration and reparation is one example of how the law
has been used as a strategy for social change. Human rights, international law and war
crimes trials, as well as citizenship and migration law, are all areas where the law has
been used as a route to implement desired social change (McAllister et al., 2003).
In Australia, the role of the criminal justice system has been reconceptualised in recent
years. New areas of multidisciplinary study built specifically on the intersection of the
law and the social and behavioural sciences are emerging in the research and scholarly
literature. Restorative justice, holistic law, preventive law, community justice and
therapeutic jurisprudence are ideas or theories that have evolved, that share a goal of
moving towards a more comprehensive resolution of legal problems. An increasing
interest in rehabilitation within the criminal justice system, the use of victim–offender
mediation, institutionalised victim-impact statements, the use of administrative
tribunals, and the increasing use of family conciliation and mediation centres can all be
seen as part of the significant shift away from the traditional adversarial legal system
(Roach Anleu, 2010).
The emergence of problem-solving courts can also be seen to be part of the wider trend
in the justice system towards a more comprehensive resolution of legal problems. In
8
acknowledging the view that alternatives to the traditional judicial process should be
considered if the resolution of legal problems is to be effective, the Chief Justice of
Australia, the Honourable Robert French stated:
There are nevertheless classes of case in which the judicial process cannot be quarantined from underlying, interdependent, personal and social issues. A judicial process with no awareness of those underlying issues and unable to fashion outcomes informed by such awareness is likely to be ineffective in contributing to their long-term resolution. In this respect drug courts, family violence courts, community courts, re-entry courts and mental health courts represent important developments (French, 2009: vii).
The Australian legal system and its processes have been criticised in relation to issues
of access, expense, complexity, technicality and comprehensibility. In a speech on The
Australian Justice System in 2020 by the Chief Justice of Western Australia, the
Honourable Wayne Martin acknowledged these criticisms when he said:
There can be no serious argument with the proposition that at least when compared with the expectations of our citizens, the Australian legal system is generally perceived to be out of touch, expensive, slow, technical, complex, and in many respects incomprehensible (Martin, 2008:4).
Further, Justice Martin stated that in the context of the civil justice system in Western
Australia, there are a number of key areas that are likely to see changes in the next
decade including the use of less adversarial approaches, a reduction in the number of
trials, and a much greater emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
processes, case management approaches, and pre-trial processes (Martin, 2008).
The area of family law in Australia has recently seen significant change in how the
traditional legal system deals with these matters. Changes to family law practices and
processes have witnessed a therapeutic approach to the resolution and determination of
disputes in many different forms. Many of these changes have been based on the
successes of the Magellan project in the Family Court of Australia (Brown, Sheehan,
Frederico & Hewitt, 2001) and the Columbus project in the Family Court of Western
9
Australia (Pike & Murphy, 2006) and a greater understanding of the implications of the
family court process on children and families (Australian Law Reform Commission,
1997; Allen, 2001; Hay, 2003; Bryant & Faulks, 2007). Many of the reforms in the area
of family law have been underpinned by therapeutic jurisprudence in its efforts to
reduce the adversarial nature of family court proceedings, including the use of less
adversarial trials (Family Court of Western Australia, 2010). The therapeutic
jurisprudence basis of these reforms is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
(iii) The emergence of therapeutic jurisprudence
Therapeutic jurisprudence has emerged within an area of scholarly interest that focuses
on the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of the law in action. It is based on
the premise that the processes used by courts, judicial officers, lawyers and other justice
system personnel can impede, promote or be neutral in relation to outcomes connected
with participant wellbeing (Wexler & Winick, 1996).
The study of therapeutic jurisprudence emerged in the 1980s in the area of mental
health law, although quickly expanded to other areas of the law including criminal law,
family law and medical law. Today, therapeutic jurisprudence is applied to many areas
of the law and across cultures, and is the subject of international study and
development. Much of the research in this area has looked at the role that therapeutic
jurisprudence has played in transforming court processes (Wexler, 2000).
To date, there has been little attention paid to the application of therapeutic
jurisprudence to the area of child welfare and the protection and care jurisdiction of the
Children’s Court in Australia. Former magistrate Michael King’s (2005) contribution is
an exception. King’s writing on the development of the first Family Care Program at
the Geraldton Magistrates Court in Western Australia suggests that therapeutic
jurisprudence has the potential to address the issues that bring families with protection
and care concerns into the Children’s Court, and highlights the importance of
addressing the root problems that may include low income, substance abuse, mental
10
health issues, or burdens of sole parenting. Similarly, in the United States, Brooks
(1999) was one of the first to write about the application of therapeutic jurisprudence in
child welfare matters. Brooks’ (1996, 2001) work has focused on therapeutic
jurisprudence and preventive law in child welfare proceedings, and the use of a family
systems paradigm for legal decision-making affecting child custody and adoption. Such
initiatives have led to ideas about how courts may play a creative and motivational role
in promoting the resolution of underlying issues.
Therapeutic jurisprudence offers a framework for questioning the way in which the
child protection legal system currently operates. A therapeutic jurisprudence framework
can assist in the analysis of the child protection legal response, by exploring the
therapeutic and non-therapeutic elements of the legal and court process. As a
framework, it can help challenge the way we think about the law and the way the law
works, including the notion of adversarialism. It can be used to assist our questioning of
how the adversarial legal process is experienced by the court participant, in this case, by
parents and families.
Therapeutic jurisprudence, creative problem solving, restorative justice and holistic
approaches to the law all share the goals of promoting the concepts of voice, validation,
respect, self-determination, autonomy and active participation. Research and scholarly
literature in this area suggest that these concepts have largely been absent from the
parents’ and families’ experiences of statutory child protection intervention. This
research seeks to explore the ways in which the Children’s Court and its processes can
promote the therapeutic concepts of voice and validation, active participation, self-
determination and autonomy for parents and families who are involved in child-
protection court proceedings.
Limited research has been conducted on the Children’s Court processes in Western
Australia, although a national assessment of Children’s courts is currently underway.
King’s (2005) work has thus far shown support for a therapeutic jurisprudence based
approach in protection and care applications; however, the scope of his study was
11
relatively small, thus limiting the research to the efficacy of the process. My research
draws on King’s conceptual framework on therapeutic jurisprudence and its application
to protection and care matters as a launch pad for further enquiry.
1.2 THE STUDY INTENT
The purpose of my research is to determine how existing laws, practices and procedures
in the Children’s Court can be most therapeutically applied for the benefit of parents
and families involved in child-protection court proceedings. Central to this objective is
to develop a stronger profile of the potential for therapeutic jurisprudence elements to
be incorporated into the Children’s Court practices and processes.
1.3 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The primary research question of this thesis is:
How can existing laws, practices and procedures in the protection and care
jurisdiction of the Children’s Court be most therapeutically applied?
I will address this primary question by answering the following two secondary research
questions:
i) What do the experiences of people involved in protection and care
proceedings say about how therapeutic jurisprudence is operating in the
Children’s Court?
ii) How can the Children’s Court be designed to empower and promote
wellbeing in court participants who are either personally or professionally
involved in its proceedings?
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE
The child protection literature highlights the need to form a better understanding of the
parents and families who had a child or children removed from their care by statutory
authorities, via the experiences of these parents so that they — a primary consumer
12
group — can inform policies and practices that will benefit children, young people and
families involved in child protection practices (Family Inclusion Network
[Queensland], 2007; Harries, 2008). It is important to note that consumers in the child
protection context extend beyond children, parents and families, to include (among
others) child protection workers, mental health workers, carers, and adults who grew up
in Australian orphanages, children’s homes and foster care.
Previous Australian Children’s Court research, including that of McConnell et al.
(2000), and Swain et al. (2002), focused specifically on parents with disabilities and
their experiences of the child protection legal and court process. My research builds on
these previous studies in its design and intent. In my research, both court observations
and participant interviews are used to provide a detailed understanding of the process of
this type of court. One notable addition to past research is the inclusion of the voices of
all parents who are involved in child-protection court proceedings, rather than a
particular cohort of parents such as those with disabilities or an identified illness. The
experiences and perspectives of the magistrates, legal representatives and court staff
who work in the protection and care jurisdiction of the Children’s Court are also
captured in this research.
My research seeks to explore in detail the specific elements of the child-protection
court process that can be seen to support or negate the principles and concepts valued
by therapeutic jurisprudence. The use and application of a therapeutic jurisprudence
framework to analyse Children’s Court processes in-depth in Australia has to date
never been undertaken.
The curiosity that stemmed from my earlier professional work in the child protection
field parallels the current debate about the status of child protection services in Western
Australia and at a national level. The significance of this investigation is that it will
happen at a time when major challenges are being identified and articulated about how
we manage child welfare decision-making in Australia. It is hoped that my research will
13
contribute to our contemporary knowledge base about what is happening to families in
a way that will give insights about how to improve the outcome for children and
families.
My research intends to make a theoretical and practical contribution to knowledge of
the child protection legal and court process. It will provide a strong intellectual and
empirical base for research, interpretation and innovative approaches to improving
policy, practice and court processes for families involved in the Children’s Court. This
research will have practical application for magistrates, lawyers, advocates, policy
makers and advisors, and child protection workers for applying therapeutic
jurisprudence principles within the protection and care jurisdiction of the Children’s
Court specifically, and to child welfare decision-making in general.
1.5 PRESENTATION OF THIS THESIS
In this chapter, I have described the impetus for the research and the research aims, and
introduced the broader policy frameworks in which this thesis is set. The intersection of
social policy and the law, and the changing face of the law have been described within
the context of the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence and these have all been linked to
child protection and the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court.
In Chapter 2, I describe the Australian legal system, and the statutory basis of child
protection in Australia and its working relationship with the Children’s Court. I do this
in order to explain the contemporary legal context within which child protection
operates. In Chapter 3, I review the key challenges and controversies facing
contemporary child protection systems around Australia. Both of these chapters provide
a backdrop for Chapter 4, in which the theory and application of therapeutic
jurisprudence is discussed at a micro, meso and macro level, and in which I provide an
extensive description of its contemporary application and potential role within the
Children’s Court. Chapter 4 begins by identifying the core tensions that have been
articulated in the literature about the way in which the law responds to child protection
14
matters. It then describes how therapeutic jurisprudence has emerged in response to
these tensions, specifically in relation to family law and child welfare.
Chapter 5 sets out the research design, its epistemology and methodology. In that
chapter, I also reflect on my research journey and draw on my observational material to
provide a detailed description of the people and place of the court in order to capture
the research arena of the Perth Children’s Court.
Chapters 6–8 report on the findings of this research, bringing together the data collected
through interviews and observations. In Chapter 6, I present the stories that parents and
families told me about their experiences of the child protection legal and court process.
These stories are framed around the feelings and emotions articulated by the parents
and families.
In Chapter 7, a collage of the voices and experiences of court participants and my
observations of the court is presented within a framework of ‘participation in the legal
system’ for parents and families appearing in child protection court proceedings. That
chapter is about how things could be done differently to augment better outcomes in the
Children’s Court and focuses on the potential for change at the micro procedural level.
Chapter 8 uses the voice of all the interviewees and participants, and observations of
the court to identify how aspects of the child protection legal system can affect broader
access to justice issues for parents and families. The potential for change in that chapter
is considered at the meso policy level.
Chapter 9 provides the conclusion to this study. That chapter presents a synthesis of the
main findings from this research, and describes how in response to the large number of
micro and meso issues identified, change is also required at a macro conceptual level.
The chapter draws on the literature to place these findings within a broader context.
2002; Brawn, 2005; Richardson, 2005) has largely focused on the design of criminal
rather than civil courts. Much of this literature suggests there is opportunity for research
in the area of the physical design of Children’s courts, most notably in exploring the
ways in which the physical spaces and design of Children’s courts can ‘silence’ or
hinder, or ‘make space’ for the parents and families involved in child protection court
proceedings.
(ii) Adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems
In very broad terms, an adversarial legal model refers to the common law system of
conducting court proceedings in which the parties, and not the judge, have the primary
responsibility for defining the issues in dispute and for investigating and advancing the
case (Australian Law Reform Commission, (ALRC), 2000). The adversarial legal
model — with passivity on the part of judges, the heightened role of lawyers, the use of
oral testimony and cross-examination — characterises the legal system of Western
Australia and other common law jurisdictions (Law Reform Commission of Western
Australia, 1999). The principles of partisanship, zealousness and the duty of
confidentiality are defining features of the adversarial system. In theory, these
principles are supposed to interlock with the adversary system by “requiring each
combatant to be represented by a loyal gladiator” (Bottomley & Bronitt, 2006:179).
Conversely, an inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the
court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to the
adversarial system where the judge's role is that of an impartial referee. The
inquisitorial system applies to questions of procedure as opposed to questions of
substantive law and is most readily used in many, but not all civil law legal systems.
20
Often the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system are compared with
the inquisitorial justice system. As previously indicated, the legal system in a number of
western European and Scandinavian countries operates according to an inquisitorial
justice model. These countries have adopted a ‘family services’ approach to address the
issue of the protection and care of children. In such countries, the grounds for
intervention imply a welfare rather than a rights basis, and the court system is also
relatively informal (Hetherington, Cooper, Smith & Wilford, 1997). The court conducts
‘inquiries’ and is not confined to deciding between the submissions of the opposing
parties.
In contrast to the ‘family services’ approach is the ‘legislative’ approach seen in
Australia, which is based on an adversarial system, and is characterised by a high
degree of partisan behaviour, partial autonomy, judicial passivity and dependence on
lawyers (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 1999). Often there are
differences in the way the adversarial model operates within adversarial jurisdictions.
For instance, such differences can be seen in how tribunals rather than courts handle a
significant number of cases, and how they generally rely on inquisitorial rather than
adversarial procedures. There is also an increasing reliance on the use of pre-litigation
alternative dispute resolution procedures by the courts, reflecting a more inquisitorial
based process. According to the Chief Justice of Western Australia:
The future years will see the strict rigors of the adversarial approach modified to encourage a more collegiate approach to the identification of the real issues in contention, and the most efficient and inexpensive means of resolving those issues (Martin, 2008:5).
The Chief Justice has also stated that the fairness and efficacy of the adversarial process
presumes that each party will have access to legal resources, and according to him, this
is not a valid assumption in contemporary Australia (Martin, 2008). He states that if
parties have unequal access to legal resources, the adversarial process can become an
instrument of unfairness, and impede the administration and delivery of justice. The
adversarial nature of the justice system — based on competing interests, arguments,
21
evidence and judgments — is regarded as contributing to barriers experienced by
people, particularly by vulnerable groups. The Disability Council of NSW (2003)
reports that for people with disabilities, this is a practical reality across jurisdictions —
in criminal matters, civil proceedings and also within alternative dispute resolution
processes.
The protection and care jurisdiction in Australia is based on an adversarial approach
(Australasian Therapeutic Jurisprudence Clearinghouse, 2010a). The adversarial
approach adjudicates cases brought by the State, and decides whether or not there is
sufficient evidence of child maltreatment to justify statutory intervention in family life.
This approach is marked by the use of highly structured and standardised risk
assessment measures and by the need to gather evidence in a manner acceptable to the
court. Because child protection systems are based on the legal requirement to
demonstrate parental incapacity or misconduct before the State can intervene, much
time is spent by workers gathering evidence suitable for use in formal legal proceedings
(Allen Consulting Group, 2003).
The adversarial nature of protection and care proceedings is perhaps the most widely
criticised component of the jurisdiction in both Australia and internationally (Swain,
1996; Weinstein, 1997; Brooks, 1999; Swain et al., 2000; McConnell et al., 2002; King,
2005; Ombudsman New South Wales, 2006; Bennett & Sadrehashemi, 2008; Wood
Inquiry, 2008; Ombudsman Victoria, 2009). While there is a well-established critique
in the research about the impact of the adversarial legal system, it was noted in the
Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales
(Wood, 2008:512) that the term ‘adversarial’ can, however, be somewhat subjective.
For instance, the spectrum of what the term ‘adversarial’ may cover could include
anything from the mere testing of evidence in court, the presence of a number of legally
represented parties, to combative, hostile and ‘point-scoring’ behaviour, and it may
relate to procedures, processes or the conduct of participants.
22
The following observation captures the essence of how an adversarial approach to
protection and care proceedings can be experienced by families:
Proceedings of this kind in the Children’s Court almost always commence in an atmosphere of acrimony and of great concern on the part of the family that they might lose their child; as well as concern on the part of DoCS staff as to the safety, welfare and well-being of the child, and of the need to be able to establish a positive working relationship if the child is in fact removed, either temporarily or on a long term basis (Wood, 2008:416).
(iii) Tensions within the system of common law
The English common law tradition that all people are equal before the law, gives rise to
the idea that the courts should be equally accessible to all. Despite this, there exists a
tension between access to justice and legal costs. In a review of the criminal and civil
justice systems in Western Australia, it was noted that people in a free and democratic
society regard justice not as a privilege but as a right. Accordingly, there is something
inherently inconsistent in the notion that justice is a right that must be paid for, in order
to gain access to it (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 1999).
Access to the court system is both formally guaranteed and structured by rules of
standing and procedure. Access to justice has come to be regarded as synonymous with
or crucially dependent on, ideals of due process or the rule of law (Bottomley &
Bronitt, 2006); ideals which are considered as the cornerstone of civil democratic
society, and are the basis on which the justice system is founded (Disability Council of
NSW, 2003). Access to justice can involve more than access to formal legal
representation and the courts. It can include issues of overcoming conceptual, physical
and attitudinal barriers within the court system itself. It can also consider procedural
issues such as overcoming delays within the court process, efficiency, formality and
cost of proceedings, and the organisation, structure and administration of courts and
tribunals.
Access to, and participation in, the justice system has been described as being central to
23
the notion of citizenship (Disability Council of NSW, 2003). Despite this, a growing
body of evidence suggests that parents and families involved in child-protection court
proceedings are being denied equal access to, and participation in, the justice system
through a range of barriers (Swain, 1996; McConnell et al., 2000; Swain et al., 2002;
Family Inclusion Network [Queensland], 2007; Bennett & Sadrehashemi, 2008;
Harries, 2008).
Critical to the subject matter of this thesis is the understanding that access to the legal
system does not necessarily mean access to equal treatment in that system. Barriers to
justice within the legal system can include restrictions in the provision of legal aid,
social or economic disadvantage, cultural issues and language barriers. Research has
clearly demonstrated that people who experience mental illness, addiction, disability,
socioeconomic difficulties or personal misfortunes face far greater challenges in
relation to accessing justice (McConnell et al., 2000; Swain et al., 2002; Forell,
Research conducted by the Family Inclusion Network in Queensland found that a key
concern of parents involved in protection and care matters was in relation to the cost of
the legal system in obtaining advice, and the eligibility for legal aid being based on the
probability of winning the case rather than on fair and due process (Family Inclusion
Network [Queensland], 2007).
A number of the reports and publications listed above have described barriers to
accessing legal assistance and barriers to participating in the legal system, particularly
by economically and socially disadvantaged and vulnerable people. Some of the
personal barriers noted in the research include communication difficulties, stress, time
management and perceived lack of credibility, as well as limited availability of
affordable legal services, time constraints placed on legal service provision and the
physical court environment.
24
In response to escalating concerns expressed about the insufficient levels of public
funding for legal aid that were progressively alienating more and more disadvantaged
Australians from the justice system, the Law Council of Australia, in conjunction with
the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, National Legal Aid and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services undertook research that led to the report The
Erosion of Legal Representation in the Australian Justice System (Law Council of
Australia, 2004). That report demonstrates unequivocally how the erosion in the level
of legal representation has had a detrimental impact on the legal system and the
delivery of justice in Australia. The report recommends urgent increased and secure
funding for those bodies responsible for managing and delivering publicly funded legal
representation. The report also focuses on self-represented litigants and their effect on
the Australian justice system. The increasing number of self-represented litigants
expected in the coming decade is particularly interesting in terms of foreshadowing the
direction in which access to public funding for legal representation will likely go in the
future.
Western Australia has attempted to address issues of justice and access in recent years.
In 2009, the Department of the Attorney General released the comprehensive
publication Equality before the Law Bench Book (Department of the Attorney General,
Western Australia, 2009) to address the need for Western Australian judicial officers to
better understand the range of values, cultures, lifestyles and life experiences of people
from different backgrounds. The Bench Book contains information about the potential
difficulties, barriers or inequities people from different backgrounds may face in
relation to court proceedings.
In the foreword of the Bench Book, the Chief Justice of Western Australia states that
our ability to ensure the equal treatment of all those who come into contact with the
justice system of Western Australia is constrained by our ability to identify and
appreciate the many and varied causes of disadvantage and inequality (Martin, 2009).
He argues that our task is to eliminate or ameliorate disadvantage and inequality
25
without causing prejudice to other participants in the justice process, and that the best
way of doing this is often neither self-evident nor intuitive — it often needs to be
informed by specialised knowledge and experience (Martin, 2009:vi).
The statutory basis of child protection in Australia and the way in which the Children’s
Court operates, both in relation to matters of law as well as in relation to the processes
by which significant decisions about the lives of children and young people are made,
will now be described.
2.3 STATUTORY BASIS OF CHILD PROTECTION IN AUSTRALIA
In Australia, child protection is a State or Territory responsibility and each of these
jurisdictions has its own child protection legislation, policies and practices in relation to
child protection (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009). While there is some
contention between the states in relation to the respective State and Territory
legislation, in essence all states and territories follow a relatively similar structure. It
has been noted that the processes and core activities being undertaken by child
protection practitioners across the states and territories of Australia, including the
gathering of information, assessment, case planning and case management are broadly
similar. However, the procedural and legislative frameworks guiding this work and
defining the child protection population vary greatly between jurisdictions (Bromfield
& Higgins, 2005).
(i) Role and structure of the Children’s Court
In 1988 the Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (WA) was passed and a
new Children’s Court was established and became known as the Children’s Court of
Western Australia. It comprises the Perth Children’s Court, located immediately
outside the central business district of Perth City, metropolitan Children’s courts in
Armadale, Fremantle, Joondalup, Rockingham and Midland, and outside the
metropolitan area the Children’s Court can sit wherever the Magistrate’s Court of
Western Australia sits. In country areas there are magistrates who exercise both
26
Magistrate’s Court and Children’s Court jurisdiction (amongst other things). The
President and magistrates based at the Perth Children’s Court operate on a rotating
basis throughout metropolitan and regional Western Australian courts.
The Children’s Court of Western Australia is constituted by a President (also referred to
as the Chief Judge), magistrates and Justices of the Peace (JPs). Currently the personnel
based at the Perth Children’s Court comprises a President, four full-time magistrates,
and one part-time magistrate (Children’s Court of Western Australia, 2010). In country
areas there are magistrates who exercise both Magistrate’s Court and Children’s Court
jurisdiction – these magistrates are also Children’s Court magistrates. The President of
the Court is a judge of the same status as a Western Australian District Court Judge
(Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (s.7(9)) and can hear appeals against
decisions of Children’s Court magistrates or Justices of the Peace (s.6(5)(a)).
Magistrates and Judges (other than the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western
Australia) in both the Children’s Court of WA and Family Court of WA have the same
judicial status, which, for Magistrates, they share with Magistrates of regional
magistrates courts.
In Western Australia, the Children’s Court is separated into two jurisdictions — the
criminal jurisdiction and the civil jurisdiction. In its criminal jurisdiction, the court
deals with all complaints of offences alleged to have been committed by a young
person between the ages of 10 and 17 years (inclusive). If the young person charged has
turned 18 after the date of the alleged offence, this young person will still appear before
the Children’s Court (Children’s Court of Western Australia, 2010). Anecdotal
evidence suggests that approximately 80% of the matters heard in the Perth Children’s
Court are criminal matters, and 20% are protection and care matters.
In its civil jurisdiction, the court deals with all protection and care matters relating to
children, and as such, the action taken in this jurisdiction is not called a ‘charge’ or
‘complaint’ but an ‘application’. If a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer neglect or
27
abuse, an officer of the Department for Child Protection, herein referred to as DCP, or a
police officer, can remove a child and take them into provisional protection and care
(Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA), s.28). The DCP will then make an
application to the Children’s Court of Western Australia for a protection order
(Children’s Court of Western Australia, 2010).
(ii) Child protection legislation at a glance: principles, provisions and
regulations
The most significant piece of legislation governing the administration of the protection
and care jurisdiction of the Children’s Court of Western Australia is the Children and
Community Services Act 2004 (WA) (referred to as the Act in this chapter), the major
provisions of which came into effect in March 2006. This Act repealed the Child
Welfare Act 1947 (WA), the Community Services Act 1972 (WA) and the Welfare and
Assistance Act 1961 (WA).
The power of DCP to intervene in the lives of children and young persons derives from
legislation, primarily the Act, and the Children and Community Services Regulations
2006 (WA) (the Regulations). The Act allows the Chief Executive Officer, herein
referred to as the CEO, to apply for a protection order for a child. The Act establishes a
regime under which the ultimate decision-making about the removal of children from
their families without their consent, and the consequent allocation of parental
responsibility rests with the courts. The Children’s Court of Western Australia is the
court with primary responsibility for making these decisions.
Prior to the enactment of the new legislation in 2006, the Minister for Community
Development had the power to extend administratively a wardship order for a child,
discharge a child from wardship, commit a child to the care of the Department (with
parental consent or where the child was abandoned or orphaned), and approve a child in
State care travelling outside of Western Australia. Under the new legislation, the CEO
has neither these powers, nor the administrative power to extend a period of care. The
28
new legislation enacted in 2006 changed the way that care and protection matters are
dealt with by the Children’s Court. The Department of the Attorney General Western
Australia Annual Report 2005–06 (2006:54) states that major changes in the new
legislation include the following:
• the magistrate may refer a pre-trial conference to an external mediator
• Department of Community Development (DCD)1 field officers can make an
application for a warrant to be issued by the court in the first instance, to
apprehend a child assessed to be in need of care and protection
• the Court can direct an independent professional report (e.g., psychological
report) to be prepared in a care and protection matter
• the Children’s Court can hear applications for extension of care orders
• all children to be separately represented rather than only those considered
capable of giving instructions
• appeals against case-planning decisions will be dealt with by the State
Administrative Tribunal.
Under the previous legislation, the Child Welfare Act 1947 (WA), the child who was
the subject to the protection and care application was required to be ‘sighted’ or
physically seen by the magistrate on the first day the matter was listed to be heard in the
court. Under the new Act, children are no longer sighted and are not expected to be
present in court for any of the proceedings. This is in accordance with research that
indicates that the less time a child is required to spend in court proceedings, the better
(ALRC, 1997; Hay, 2003).
1 Department of Community Development (DCD) is now known at the Department for Child Protection (DCP).
29
The key principles and provisions that guide decision-making activities of the
Children’s Court will now be briefly described.
Principles of the Act
The Chief Executive Officer of the DCP is empowered by the Act to safeguard and
promote children’s wellbeing, investigate allegations of abuse or neglect, apply to the
Children’s Court for protection orders, make arrangements for children to be placed in
the CEO’s care and provide for children leaving care.
In exercising any of the powers under the Act, DCP (and others) must adhere to the
principles set out in the Act. The Act confers functions in relation to the provision of
social services, financial and other assistance, and other matters concerning the
wellbeing of children, families and communities. It makes provisions for the protection
and care of children, the employment of children, and childcare services.
The Act contains principles that must be observed and considered in the administration
and carrying out of functions under the Act, including the following:
• Principle that the best interests of the child are paramount (s.8)
• Principle of child participation (s.10)
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle (s.12)
• Principle of self-determination (specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders) (s.13)
• Principle of community participation (specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders) (s.14).
Guiding Principles
Guiding principles of the Act (s.9) that direct the work of the DCP and the Children’s
Court of Western Australia include the following:
(a) That the parents, family and community of a child have the primary role in
safeguarding and promoting the child’s wellbeing
30
(b) That the preferred way of safeguarding and promoting a child’s wellbeing is to
support the child’s parents, family and community in the care of the child
(c) That every child should be cared for and protected from harm
(d) That every child should live in an environment free from violence
(e) That every child should have stable, secure and safe relationships and living
arrangements
(f) That intervention action (as defined in section 32(2)) should be taken only in
circumstances where there is no other reasonable way to safeguard and promote
the child’s wellbeing
(g) That if a child is removed from the child’s family then, so far as is consistent
with the child’s best interests, the child should be given encouragement and
support in maintaining contact with the child’s parents, siblings and other
relatives and with any other people who are significant in the child’s life
(h) That decisions about a child should be made promptly having regard to the age,
characteristics, circumstances and needs of the child
(i) That decisions about a child should be consistent with cultural, ethnic and
religious values and traditions relevant to the child
(j) That a child’s parents and any other people who are significant in the
child’s life should be given an opportunity and assistance to participate in
decision-making processes under this Act that are likely to have a significant
impact on the child’s life
(k) That a child’s parents and any other people who are significant in the child’s life
should be given adequate information, in a manner and language that they can
understand.
Best Interests Principle
In relation to the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount (s.8), the
Act states the following:
8(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act what is in a child’s best interests the
following matters must be taken into account —
31
(a) The need to protect the child from harm;
(b) The capacity of the child’s parents to protect the child from harm;
(c) The capacity of the child’s parents, or of any other person, to provide for the
child’s needs;
(d) The nature of the child’s relationship with the child’s parents, siblings and other
relatives and with any other people who are significant in the child’s life;
(e) The attitude to the child, and to parental responsibility, demonstrated by the
child’s parents;
(f) Any wishes or views expressed by the child, having regard to the child’s age
and level of understanding in determining the weight to be given to those wishes
or views;
(g) The importance of continuity and stability in the child’s living arrangements and
the likely effect on the child of disruption of those living arrangements,
including separation from —
i. The child’s parents;
ii. A sibling or other relative of the child;
iii. A carer or any other person (including a child) with whom the child is,
or has recently been, living; or
iv. Any other person who is significant in the child’s life;
(h) The need for the child to maintain contact with the child’s parents, siblings and
other relatives and with any other people who are significant in the child’s life;
(i) The child’s age, maturity, sex, sexuality, background and language;
(j) The child’s cultural, ethnic or religious identity (including any need to maintain
a connection with the lifestyle, culture and traditions of Aboriginal people or
Torres Strait Islanders);
(k) The child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, developmental and
educational needs;
(l) Any other relevant characteristics of the child;
(m) The likely effect on the child of any change in the child’s circumstances.
32
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
The Act contains specific provisions regarding the needs of Indigenous children and
young people. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
provides that certain considerations and preferences must be taken into account in
relation to the placement of an Indigenous child or young person. All Australian states
and territories have adopted this principle, demonstrating a shared commitment towards
preserving familial or at least cultural or community links for children and young
people in care.
The Act outlines a preference for the placement of Indigenous children and young
persons with Indigenous people when they are placed outside their families. Section 12
of the Act states the general order of preference for placement is that an Indigenous
child or young person be placed: with a member of his or her family; or if this is not
practicable, a member of the Indigenous community to which he or she belongs; or if
this is not practicable, a member of another Indigenous family; or if this is not
practicable, placement with a person who is not an Indigenous person but who, in the
opinion of the CEO, is sensitive to the needs of the child and capable of promoting the
child’s ongoing affiliation with the child’s culture, and where possible, the child’s
family.
The Act also contains specific provisions regarding the needs of Indigenous children
and young people. Section 13 relates to the principle of self-determination and states
that in the administration of the Act, Indigenous people should be allowed to participate
in the care and protection of their children and young persons “with as much self-
determination as possible”. Section 14 of the Act relates to the principle of community
participation, and states that in the administration of the Act, a principle to be observed
is that a kinship group, community or representative organisation of Indigenous people
should be given, where appropriate, an opportunity and assistance to participate in
decision-making processes that are likely to have a significant impact on the life of a
33
child who is a member of, or represented by the group, community or organisation.
A lack of availability of Indigenous carers and there being no requirement that children
be placed via an Indigenous agency have acted as a barrier to the proper
implementation of these principles, and these concerns have been raised in the literature
(Valentine & Gray, 2006; Wood Inquiry, 2008).
Specific provisions within the Act
There are specific provisions within the Act that determine how the legislation shapes
the operation of the Children’s Court of Western Australia. A number of these
provisions have specific implications for the parents and families who are involved in
protection and care court proceedings.
Section 145 of the Act relates to the general conduct of protection proceedings, and
states that proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and legal technicality
as the circumstances of the case permit (s.145(1)). Under this provision, the judge or
magistrate of the Children’s Court is not to wear traditional wigs and gowns, in an
attempt to reduce the formality of proceedings. Similarly, they should proceed as
expeditiously as possible in order to minimise the effect of the proceedings on the child
and the child’s family (s.145(2)). These provisions are underpinned by concepts valued
by therapeutic jurisprudence.
Section 153 of the Act relates to the Children’s Court facilitating the parties’
participation in proceedings, and states that in protection proceedings the Court must,
as far as is practicable, ensure that each party understands the nature, purpose and legal
implications of the proceedings and of any order or decision of the Court (s.153(1)).
Section 146 of the Act relates to the Children’s Court not being bound by the rules of
evidence. This provision raises a number of questions relating to equity and access
issues in the legal system. In protection proceedings, while the court is not bound by the
34
rules of evidence, it may inform itself on any matter, in any matter it considers
appropriate (s.146(2)). Rules of evidence limit the information that can be considered
by a court, but also assist the court in determining the strength and reliability of the
information that is before it (Wood Inquiry, 2008). The ‘burden of proof’ requirement
is different from the criminal court where the standard of proof has to be ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’.
There appears very little information in the literature pertaining to the consequences of
the rules of evidence not being applied in the Children’s Court. However, it has been
suggested that this major concession can work in favour of the applicant (in this case,
the Department for Child Protection) and some people have argued that this is one of
the reasons why a proposal for relocation of the protection and care jurisdiction to the
Family Court of Western Australia, where the rules of evidence do apply, does not have
the full support of the DCP.
Children and Community Services Regulations 2006
The Children and Community Services Regulations 2006 (WA) cover rules and
regulations and administrative matters relating to the Act, including procedures and
administration of pre-hearing conferences (specifically in relation to the appointment of
convenors and the people who may attend the pre-hearing conferences), transitional
care arrangements, and approval of carers for children in the care of the CEO.
Mandatory reporting
Amendments to the Act to include the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse by
certain professionals in Western Australia came into effect on 1 January 2009. Western
Australia was the last state or territory in Australia to have such laws enacted. Under
the new amendments, doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers and police officers are
required to make a report to DCP if they form a belief on reasonable grounds, that a
child has been sexually abused or is the subject of ongoing sexual abuse. Other
mandatory reporting provisions include the provision in the Western Australia Family
35
Court Act 1997, which requires court personnel, counsellors and mediators to report
allegations or suspicions of child abuse in Family Court cases (s.160), and regulations
in the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA) that require childcare
personnel to report suspected child abuse.
(iii) Protection applications and protection orders
A protection application by the DCP to the Children’s Court seeks a determination that
a child or young person is “in need of protection”. Under Section 28(2) of the Act, “in
need of protection” is defined as where: —
(a) the child has been abandoned by his or her parents and, after reasonable inquiries —
(i) the parents cannot be found; and (ii) no suitable adult relative or other suitable adult can be found
who is willing and able to care for the child; (b) the child’s parents are dead or incapacitated and, after reasonable
inquiries, no suitable adult relative or other suitable adult can be found who is willing and able to care for the child;
(c) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm as a result of any one or more of the following —
(i) physical abuse; (ii) sexual abuse; (iii) emotional abuse; (iv) psychological abuse; (v) neglect, and the child’s parents have not protected, or are unlikely or unable to
protect, the child from harm, or further harm, of that kind; or (d) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm as a result of — (i) the child’s parents being unable to provide, or arrange the
provision of, adequate care for the child; or (ii) the child’s parents being unable to provide, or arrange the
provision of, effective medical, therapeutic or other remedial treatment for the child.
36
Protection applications can only be made by the CEO under section 44(1) of the Act.
The protection application must specify the particular type of protection order sought,
and the grounds on which it is sought (s.44(2)).
Protection orders
The Children’s Court can make a protection order in relation to a child or young person
if it is satisfied that the child or young person is “in need of protection”. If the
Children’s Court determines that a child or young person is in need of protection, it can
make a protection order allocating some or all aspects of responsibility for the child or
young person to the CEO. Previously in Western Australia, the Children’s Court
determined the length of guardianship orders under which children or young people
were placed. The Act enables the Children’s Court to make one of four types of
protection orders according to the needs and circumstances of the child or young
person:
- Protection Order (time limited —2 years)
- Protection Order (until 18 years)
- Protection Order (supervision)
- Protection Order (enduring parental responsibility).
Madden and Wayne (2002) suggest that in a legal context, the application of
therapeutic jurisprudence at the micro level may relate to the way an individual judge
speaks to a criminal defendant during a sentencing hearing, a meso level intervention
may relate to the creation of separate waiting rooms for plaintiffs and defendants in
domestic violence courts, and a macro level intervention may be the passage of
therapeutically sound juvenile laws.
Other literature suggests that micro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship
relates to procedural-level court process considerations. For example, this scholarship
may consider the therapeutic administration or application of existing law, and focus on
particular rules, procedures or processes, or propose adjustments to that law (Wexler,
1995; King et al., 2009). Macro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship on the
other hand, focuses on broader constructs such as an entire body of law, or broader
conceptions of law, or consideration of the therapeutic impact on society, or legal
doctrines. Scholars may analyse the roots of the law and call for fundamental,
transformative, societal changes, and psycho-legal architects may propose the creation
of new service systems (Wexler, 1995).
89
Earlier therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship by Brooks (1999) in the area of child
welfare law and practice in the United States proposed that the creation of legal
arrangements such as kinship care, subsidised guardianship, co-operative adoption, the
creation of alternative legal processes for conflict resolution such as Family Group
Conferencing and mediation, and implementation of innovative legal structures such as
the Unified Family Court, were all examples of macro-analytic therapeutic
jurisprudence thinking and practice in action. It is interesting to note that the majority
of therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship to date has related more to micro level rather
than macro level issues, suggesting that people generally see therapeutic jurisprudence
in micro terms.
In considering the relevant ‘levels’ (micro, meso and macro) in attendances at the
Children’s Court and its processes, micro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence may
consider the implications of certain legal provisions within the Act such as the court not
being bound by the rules of evidence (s.146). Micro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence
may also look at the role of legal actors and consider how the behaviour or dialogue
between magistrates and parents can have a positive or negative impact on parents and
their experiences of the court system. Macro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence thinking
and practice in the context of the Children’s Court may question how the adversarial
trial process could potentially damage the relationship between parents and the child
protection workers and agency, or it may consider the impact of pre-adjudication
conferencing on parents and families, or the use of pre-trial conferencing as alternative
legal processes for resolving contested matters.
In this research, the micro, meso and macro distinction is adapted and used as a
framework for structuring the analysis of the Children’s Court. For the purposes of this
research, micro level considerations relate to: procedural issues to do with participating
in the legal system; meso level considerations relate to access to justice issues; and
macro level considerations relate to relationships of power, existing court culture and
the comparative resources of the State. The following section will focus on the
90
application of therapeutic jurisprudence in practice, and will concentrate specifically on
the areas of problem-solving courts, justice architecture, and family law and child
welfare.
4.4 APPLYING THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE IN PRACTICE Court is a stressful experience for most witnesses. The contested cases in the Children’s Court are more bitterly fought and emotional than all other jurisdictions because the decision the Court has to make is whether to remove the child from his/her family. These cases are traumatic for all involved, including the Magistrates and staff at the Children’s Court (Attorney General, Victoria, 2009:57)
This section considers therapeutic jurisprudence in practice, and pays particular
attention to the way in which it underpins problem-solving courts, its potential role in
court architecture and design, and its application to the area of family law and child
welfare.
Australia has been recognised internationally for making substantial contributions in
the areas of therapeutic jurisprudence, restorative justice, Indigenous courts, problem-
solving courts, and to the ‘Non-adversarial Justice’ movement as a whole. Australia’s
contribution to the body of therapeutic jurisprudence literature has been extensive
2007; King et al., 2009), and its application can be seen in various specialised court
settings in Western Australia including the Adult Drug Court, Youth Drug Court,
Domestic Violence Court, Yandeyarra Circle Court and the Wiluna Aboriginal Court.
Many of these initiatives have received worldwide recognition (McMahon & Wexler,
2003).
A number of important forums in Australia have shown continuing support for the
growth of therapeutic jurisprudence initiatives. For instance, the Australian Institute of
Judicial Administration (AIJA) has sponsored the Australasian Therapeutic
91
Jurisprudence Clearinghouse and has hosted international conferences in the field. In
2009, the AIJA and the Department of the Attorney General Western Australia
demonstrated their ongoing commitment to this important area by publishing a number
of judicial bench books all of which are underpinned by therapeutic jurisprudence
thinking.
Therapeutic jurisprudence as an approach to the law has proved extraordinarily
successful in a wide range of contexts within a relatively short space of time.
Resolutions have been passed to apply therapeutic jurisprudence in United States courts
and in Western Australian courts (Conference of Chief Justices Resolution, 2000;
Western Australian Country Magistrates Resolution, 2004), and therapeutic
jurisprudence has been included in the national curriculum for judicial development for
Australian judicial officers (National Judicial College Curriculum, 2008). Today, the
International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence lists over 1608 items in its website
bibliography database. With over 900 articles and over fifty books written and
published on therapeutic jurisprudence, the breadth and international interest in the area
is apparent.
The Chief Justice of Western Australia, the Honourable Wayne Martin stated in his
address to the 3rd International Conference on Therapeutic Jurisprudence held in Perth,
Western Australia in 2006, that he was firmly of the view that:
The concepts discussed at this conference have application in virtually every field of the law and are therefore of the utmost importance to lawyers and to the courts, and, more importantly, the community we all serve (Martin, 2006:11).
(i) Problem-solving courts
Although having application in all areas of the law, therapeutic jurisprudence has
become the underlying philosophy behind problem-solving courts. These include
mental health courts, Indigenous courts, drug courts, neighbourhood justice courts,
family courts and domestic violence courts (AIJA, 2009a). The past decade has seen
92
an increase in the number of problem-solving courts internationally and in Australia.
The overarching goal of these problem-solving courts has been a focus on promoting
wellbeing and contributing to the resolution of problems underlying the legal issue,
rather than punishment as a primary goal of the court.
These courts require adequate judicial time to conduct the problem-solving court
program: additional court appearances are required of the court participants;
allowing more time for engagement and judicial interaction with participants; and
greater levels of judicial expertise to apply solution focused approaches. All of these
things can reportedly contribute to promoting court participants’ motivation,
confidence and satisfaction in the court process and court system (King, 2009a).
The value of therapeutic jurisprudence to problem-solving courts has been studied
by authors worldwide, and significant research on its application in particular forums
includes that of Hora, Schma and Rosenthal (1999), Brooks (1999, 2001), Allen
(2001), Birgden (2002), Petrucci (2002), Popovic (2003), Flynn (2005) and King
(2005). The following comparison table by Warren (1998) has been widely cited in
the therapeutic jurisprudence literature and is included to summarise the
‘transformed’ court process seen in problem-solving courts.
93
Figure 2. Comparison of traditional court process and transformed court process
Traditional Court Process Transformed Court Process Dispute resolution Problem-solving dispute
avoidance Legal outcome Therapeutic outcome Adversarial process Collaborative process Claim or case oriented People oriented Rights based Interest or needs based Judge as arbiter Judge as coach Backward-looking to precedent Forward-looking and planning
based Emphasis placed on adjudication
Emphasis placed on post-adjudication and alternative dispute resolution
Few participants and stakeholders Wide range of participants and stakeholders
Individualistic Interdependent Legalistic Commonsensical Formal Informal Efficient Effective Interpretation and application of law Interpretation and application of
social science
Source: Comparison table by Warren (1998)
A major difference I would have with Warren and what is highly relevant to my thesis
is that I see transformed court process as the interpretation and application of law
within the context of social science.
When referring to the emergence of problem-solving courts, the Chief Justice of
Western Australia observed that all of these courts work on the basis that an
intersection between the law and social sciences within the justice system, provides the
potential to identify and address the underlying causes that have brought a person
before the court and subsequently the opportunity for a beneficial intervention (Martin,
2008).
While the Children’s Court does not purport to be a problem-solving court or provide
94
such services, much can be learned from the methods and approaches used in problem-
solving programs. These approaches include consideration of the need to promote
positive behavioural change and the wellbeing of participants, increasing awareness of
how people experience the court process, and raising awareness of the ways in which
the judiciary and lawyers interact with court participants — and the impact of such
interactions.
(ii) Justice architecture
The study of therapeutic jurisprudence can inform the spaces which we use in all forms
of litigation. This emerging area in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature relates to
people’s experience of the courts’ design and court spaces. Kennedy and Tait (1999)
refer to this area of study as the social and architectural psychology of people and
courts environments. Architectural psychology as an academic discipline examines the
psychological and social experience people have in an environment.
The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia conducted a Review of the
Criminal and Civil Justice System in Western Australia (1999) and the final report
included a chapter on Architecture, Psychology and Law Reform in Western Australia.
That chapter, which approached law reform from an architectural psychology
perspective, considered how the court environment influences people’s experience of
justice. In this context, the ‘environment’ consists of a combination of the physical with
the social and psychological experience people have in the court setting. A number of
important recommendations were made in the report including that careful
psychological studies on the effects of court environments should be made prior to
commencing any significant construction or renovation projects, and that psychological
research should be reviewed, and appropriately tailored studies undertaken, to consider
the design variables which may influence aggressive behaviour and affect the safety of
participants in the justice system (Kennedy & Tait, 1999:1073).
95
Architectural psychology research conducted in Australia suggests that the physical
layout and design of the court building, courtrooms and waiting room areas can all have
a significant impact on how court participants experience the justice system. Australian
research, including the work of Tait (1999), Missingham, Heywood and Brawn (2002),
Brawn (2005) and Karras, McCarron, Gray, Ardasinski and May (2006), while not
explicitly referring to therapeutic jurisprudence as such, highlights the importance of
space in enabling legal and court systems to be more therapeutic for the people
involved.
McConnell, Llewellyn and Ferronato (2000), in their research on parents with
disabilities who are involved in protection and care matters in the Children’s Court
observed that at the most basic level, the physical court environment is alienating for
parents and is ‘stress magnifying’. One legal representative who was interviewed in that
research referred to the court environment as “The cauldron where you can observe the
fears and frustrations of parents brewing” (p.54). McConnell and his colleagues found
parents with psychiatric or intellectual disability were particularly disadvantaged by
having to wait for long periods of time in crowds of anxious and angry people, because
of the added stress that this can promote. Environments such as these were found to
exacerbate what was already a tense situation, and could potentially affect parents’
presentation in court.
In a broader look at the legal needs of people with a mental illness in New South
Wales, Karras et al. (2006) highlighted how the physical environment of a legal service
and its day-to-day office procedures may act as a barrier to using legal services for
someone who has a mental illness. Karras and her colleagues indicated that physical
environmental considerations that are seemingly minor, such as fluorescent lighting and
extraneous noise can potentially distract people with a mental illness and prevent them
from engaging effectively with legal service providers.
96
Other research that has looked at the ways in which court users interact with space has
indicated how environments and spaces can sometimes ‘serve’ and sometimes ‘hinder’
(Brawn, 2005). In her PhD study, Richardson (2005) looked specifically at the impact
that courtroom symbolism can have on court participants’ emotional state, and she
separated these into ‘fixed’ symbols (buildings and architecture), ‘semi-fixed’ symbols
(wigs, robes, coat of arms) and ‘non-fixed’ symbols (the behaviour of lawyers, police,
bailiffs).
The literature on therapeutic jurisprudence and court space and design highlights the
importance of considering the physical barriers to the participation of parents and
families in the legal system. Much of this research is based on the idea that both the
physical surrounds and a person’s state of mind are important. The research suggests
that the physical environment of the court and its impact on the experience of court
participants may be an essential component to improving the child protection legal and
court system.
(iii) Family law and child welfare
My research was prompted in part by my awareness of the emerging developments of
court initiatives and programs in Western Australia that were underpinned by
therapeutic jurisprudence thinking and philosophy, and in part by my acute appreciation
of the fact that the children and parents appearing in the Children’s Court are in
desperate need for that system to similarly be underpinned by practices that reflect
more therapeutic and humane legal approaches for dealing with families in crisis and
with complex problems.
While Australia and indeed Western Australia have benefited from major changes to
the Family Court, there has been very little published work on the child-protection
court process in the Children’s Court. Apart from the work of King and Tatasciore
(2005) and their writing on the Geraldton Family Care program, and the work of
Weinstein (1997), Brooks (1996, 1999, 2001) and Babb (1997) in the area of child
97
welfare law and practice, this area has been relatively under-represented in the
therapeutic jurisprudence literature. Because of the significance of the Family Court
developments, (many of which are underpinned by therapeutic jurisprudence) in
relation to my research, I summarise them now in some detail.
Australia recently benefited from major reforms to the Family Court that included
amendment to key legislation in 2006, and a move towards less adversarial and more
conciliatory methods of resolving family conflict. Therapeutic jurisprudence thinking
informed many of these key changes. The change from a traditional common law
approach to a less adversarial one has had significant implications, not only for the
conduct of family law litigation, but also for the conduct of litigation as a whole.
The application of therapeutic jurisprudence to the area of family law has generated
much interest both in Australia and internationally. The Family Court of Australia’s
‘incursion’ into the terrain of therapeutic jurisprudence has been discussed by various
5.1 INTRODUCTION In the first part of this chapter, I present the theoretical framework that has guided and
informed my inquiry and approach for this research. I outline research design-and-
methods decisions, and describe the participants and the setting. The way in which the
data were collected and analysed is presented. Ethical considerations in conducting
qualitative research of this nature, and more specific ethical and relational issues I
considered important in conducting research in this very sensitive area are also
discussed.
In the second part of this chapter, I reflect on my research journey, and draw on my
observational material to provide a detailed description of the people and place of the
court in order to capture the research arena of the Perth Children’s Court. I include this
reflection to provide another layer and lens to help place my research in context. The
reflection of my research journey captures the process, the relationships, the culture and
the tensions evident in the court. I explore the complexity of this research and what it
means to me in this part of the chapter. This reflection provides a context for my
analysis and findings.
5.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research seeks to assess how the Children’s Court of Western Australia and its
legal response to families in adversity could be more therapeutic. To do this, the
research sought to answer the following research questions:
104
Primary Research Question:
How can existing laws, practices and procedures in the protection and care
jurisdiction of the Children’s Court be most therapeutically applied?
In order to answer the primary research question, I used a therapeutic jurisprudence
framework for organising and structuring the analysis of the child protection legal
system and components of its legal process. I addressed the primary research question
by answering the following two secondary research questions:
(i) What do the experiences of people involved in protection and care proceedings
say about how therapeutic jurisprudence is operating in the Children’s Court?
(ii) How can the Children’s Court be designed to empower and promote wellbeing
in court participants who are either personally or professionally involved in its
proceedings?
5.3 DESIGNING THE RESEARCH: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The absence of the voice of parents and families in the child protection system as a
whole was a key motivator for this research, the goal of which is to present to a wider
public a view of the lived experience of parents and families involved in child
protection court proceedings in the Children’s Court.
Areas of legal need and access to justice for parents and families in child protection
court proceedings have not been well addressed in the research and scholarly literature.
A research design that involved few assumptions about the nature of individuals’
experience and range of legal needs experienced by this group was therefore deemed to
be most appropriate. The purpose of the research was to assess how the Children’s
Court of Western Australia and its legal response to families in adversity could be more
therapeutic.
105
A qualitative rather than quantitative paradigm is chosen for this study because the
research is exploratory in nature. It combines naturalistic enquiry with the gathering of
qualitative data, to gain as much understanding as possible as to how parents and
families, magistrates, lawyers and court staff experience the child protection legal and
court process. The conceptual research design-and-methods decisions, key texts I have
drawn on include Miles and Huberman (1994), Creswell (1994), Punch (1998), Patton
(2002), Denzin and Lincoln (2000), Stake (2010) who all generally agree that
qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world, where
researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to
interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative
techniques have been chosen in both the collection and analysis of data.
(i) Data collection
The literature review identified a number of key studies on parents’ experiences of the
child protection system (Freymond, 2003; Reich, 2005; Family Inclusion Network
[Queensland], 2007; Bennett and Sadrehashemi, 2008; Harries, 2008). With the
exception of McConnell et al. (2000), and Swain et al. (2002), there has been very little
research on parents’ and families’ experiences of the child protection legal and court
process in Australia.
The case study method is used to study one case in detail, that case being the Children’s
Court of Western Australia. The general objective of this approach is to understand the
case in-depth, in its natural setting, recognise its complexity and its context, an
approach which is generally agreed by Stake (1995), Punch (1998), and Yin (2003,
2009). Case studies have been described as the preferred strategy when ‘how’ or ‘why’
questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and
when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real life context (Yin,
2003, 2009). In this research, one particular case is examined in order to contribute to
our understanding of how the process in the Children’s Court of Western Australia in
106
particular, but Children’s courts in general, can foster strengths and skills in parents,
and promote family healing.
The exploratory nature of this research led to a choice of qualitative methods of data
collection: semi-structured interviews with parents and families, magistrates, lawyers
and court staff, and participant observation of the Children’s Court. The data gathered
through the interview and observation stages are analysed in terms of the themes which
emerge from the interview narratives and the observed behaviours of the court.
Participant observation was considered essential to this research in order to understand
the context in which magistrates, lawyers and court staff work, and that parents and
families experience. Patton (2002) states that this approach makes it possible to observe
nuances, routines and ignored aspects which might escape the conscious awareness of
participants and discover things no-one else ever really paid attention to, and to move
beyond the selected perceptions of others.
It was originally intended that a comprehensive secondary analysis of court-related
documentation (including legislation and policy) would be undertaken in order to
determine whether or not therapeutic jurisprudence principles could be interpreted as
being present in the policy. However, due to the already considerable data gathered
through the interview and participant observation stages, it was decided that a more
comprehensive analysis of those data would take place rather than extending to a third
source of data.
Data collection setting
All data collected come from two courtrooms at the Perth Children’s Court, which is a
specialist court and headquarters of the Children’s Court of Western Australia. The
President of the Children’s Court of Western Australia supported this research, and the
significance of his formal support cannot be underestimated. The literature highlights
107
the importance of such formal support in giving research legitimacy (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999; Patton, 2002).
The Children’s Court of Western Australia operates statewide and comprises the Perth
Children’s Court, metropolitan Children’s courts, and outside the metropolitan area the
court sits wherever the Magistrate’s Court of Western Australia sits. When appointed,
commonly magistrates receive dual commissions to sit in both the Magistrate’s Court
and the Children’s Court. While the Children’s Court of Western Australia comprises
many courts, this research focused specifically on the processes at the Perth Children’s
Court. The decision was made to focus on one court, rather than on courts throughout
the State of Western Australia for very practical reasons. The importance of
understanding the similarities and/or differences between metropolitan and regional
areas particularly around cultural and linguistic issues is acknowledged. For example,
some regional magistrates who exercise both Magistrate and Children’s Court
jurisdiction can carry significant child protection caseloads and in some areas, the
caseload can be almost entirely Indigenous cases. In this research, one particular Court
is examined in order to contribute to our understanding of how the process in the
Children’s Court of Western Australia in particular, but Children’s courts in general,
can foster strengths and skills in parents, and promote family healing. I remain mindful
in analysing the data that I focused on one metropolitan court location and there may be
differences with regional court settings, which may well limit the generalizability of the
findings state-wide”.
Collecting the data occurred in two stages. Stage One involved participant observation
and Stage Two involved semi-structured interviews and continuing participant
observation. The following section describes these stages in more detail.
Data collection Stage One: participant observation
The purpose of the participant observation was to understand the context, the process
and the participants of the Perth Children’s Court. The Perth Children’s Court building
108
consists of six separate courtrooms. Four courtrooms (courtrooms 1 to 4) are designated
to criminal matters (juvenile justice) and two courtrooms (courtrooms 5 and 6) are
designated specifically to protection and care matters. For security reasons, Courtroom
6 has been designed with a separate and secure entry and exit point for the Department
for Child Protection (DCP) lawyers and caseworkers. Adjoining Courtroom 6 by the
separate entry is a waiting room area specifically for DCP personnel. This separate
entry is located on the opposite side of the courtroom to the main entry used by parents
and other parties, The court building has security personnel who can be contacted
immediately at any time in the event that a guard is needed within the courtroom during
proceedings. While Courtroom 6 has a separate and secure entry point for DCP staff,
the courtroom does not currently have a video link-up facility.
While Courtroom 5 has not been designed with the separate and secure entry points,
this courtroom does have video link-up facilities. All parties to proceedings (parents,
their lawyers, DCP caseworkers, and DCP lawyers) in this court are required to wait
together in the same general waiting room areas and enter and exit the court from the
same door. The video link is required for any matter where the parent or parents are in
custody, or a parent or legal representative resides in a rural or remote location. The
video link is used regularly; therefore the majority of matters are heard in Courtroom 5
so that magistrates and lawyers do not need to relocate between courtrooms. The
protection and care matters commence at 9.00 a.m. each week day and the protection
list usually runs for approximately 45 minutes, which is then followed by the video
link-ups. Approximately five to fifteen protection and care matters may be heard on any
one-day in the protection and care court.
The waiting room area at the Perth Children’s Court is a large open space with rows of
bench seating. The waiting room area is usually very full and busy on weekday
mornings at 9.00 a.m. For many parents involved in protection and care proceedings,
this is often the only time they see and speak with their lawyer (if they have one) about
the direction of their case. Generally, all parties to protection and care proceedings are
109
required to wait together, often seated side-by-side.
In early 2009, the Children’s Court front-entry security was upgraded to include an
airport-style X-ray security door. This upgrade was due to a number of incidents
involving youth in warring gangs who were found to be carrying weapons into the
courtroom. Visitors to the court are required to identify themselves to the front-door
security staff. The protection and care court is a closed court to the general public. At
times there are extended family or support persons seated at the back of the courtroom.
In these instances, the magistrate will often ask the extended family or support person
to identify themselves and their relationship to the parent and child.
The court registry desk has over a dozen brochures and booklets available for youth
who are involved in criminal matters. There are brochures on Victim Offender
Mediation, Youth Drug Court, Child Witnesses, ‘What to expect at (Juvenile) Court,
Victim Support and Counselling (in relation to criminal matters) and ‘How to use
video-link facilities’. Interestingly, there are no brochures or booklets available for
parents involved in protection and care proceedings regarding the process, or what to
expect. While there is an information booklet available on the internet on protection and
care proceedings process, this resource is not widely known nor publicised by the staff
at the court.
The Perth Children’s Court has a voluntary court welfare service that is located in the
main waiting room area. Again, this service is specifically designed for the criminal
jurisdiction and not for the protection and care division. The role of the volunteer is to
help the young person involved in a criminal matter to fill out their Legal Aid
application paperwork while they wait to see a duty lawyer prior to their matter being
called, as this helps to free up the lawyer’s time.
The President of the Children’s Court notified all magistrates of the purpose of my
research, and explained that I would be attending the protection and care court on a
110
regular basis over the following nine months. Following a personal introduction to all
magistrates by the President, I sent email correspondence to each magistrate containing
an explanatory statement about the research, an information sheet about the research
(see Appendix E), a sample consent form (see Appendix F) and a request for their
participation in the study by way of an interview (see Appendix G).
Participant observation of protection and care proceedings included observation of
mentions, hearings, pre-hearing conferences and trials that took place in Courtroom 5
and Courtroom 6 (the two designated protection and care courts) two days a week, for a
three-month period from November 2007–January 2008 (Phase One), and one day a
week for a six-month period from February 2008–July 2008 (Phase Two).
Phase One of the observations allowed immersion in the courtroom setting, and an
opportunity for me to gain familiarity with the roles and tasks of the research
participants, and the legislative framework. This first phase was an opportunity to note
emerging patterns relevant to the study, and an opportunity to allow specific interview
questions to be framed. Phase Two of the observations allowed me to study more
intently the court participants, their behaviours, interactions and activity taking place in
the courtroom, in the light of the interview questions that had been established. This
second phase of the observations enabled a more multi-faceted perspective of the
workings of the Children’s Court. Over 300 protection and care matters (approximately
12 matters per day) and 48 pre-hearing conferences were observed over the study
period.
The cases observed in the observation phases may be described as an availability
sample, as they were cases being heard on the days I attended court. The daily
protection list of matters (cases) did not include fixed appearance times so I would
observe only those matters heard in courtrooms 5 and 6 and those heard in the pre-
hearing conference room on the days I attended court. I most often observed the court
on Mondays, because this was the busiest court calendar day, but observations also took
111
place during other days of the week. The protection list would usually run for
approximately 45 minutes to 90 minutes, and between five and twenty matters could be
heard by the magistrate each morning. Availability sampling is described as sampling
the first available appropriate sampling units (Seaberg, 1985).
A ‘passive’ method of participant-observation as described by Spradley (1980) was
used where I was visible in the setting, but did not take on a role specific to the setting.
I was immersed in the setting for a considerable period of time in order to experience it
as those in the setting might (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In the courtroom I sat at the
back of the court, in seats reserved for family or support persons, court security, and
legal representatives who were waiting for their matter to be called. In this way I was
able to see and hear all that was said in the court. I was also able to unobtrusively take
notes between (not during) matters being heard. I had minimal interaction with court
participants during court proceedings. On occasion, I was approached by legal
representatives who enquired as to the purpose of my presence in the court. I revealed
my status as a researcher and the overall goal of the study to anyone who enquired.
During observations of the pre-hearing conferences, I sat to the side of the conference
room, away from the oval desk where all parties to proceedings sat. I was introduced to
the conference attendees by the magistrate convening the conference and the purpose of
my observations was briefly described. Attendees to the conference were asked if they
had any concern with me observing the conference, in which case I would leave the
room. No attendees made this request. Attendees were given the option to take a copy
of my Information Sheet, which outlined the research in more detail.
Field notes were not taken during court proceedings or during the pre-hearing
conferences in accordance with the judges’ request, University ethics approval, and as
stipulated on the research Information Sheet and Consent Form provided to research
participants. It was not considered appropriate to take field notes during court
112
proceedings given that parents were unaware of the purpose of my observations. I
reviewed the daily protection list prior to the court sitting and made note of who was
the presiding magistrate for the day, the number of matters to be heard and the purpose
of the matter (mention, hearing, pre-trial conference, etc.).
Detailed field notes were taken at the conclusion of each pre-hearing conference and in-
between matters on the protection list being called, allowing a few minutes for me to
make notes when parents were not in the courtroom. I maintained anonymity in my
field notes, never using first and last names of individuals. More detailed field notes
were made at the end of the morning protection list when I would sit in the waiting
room area outside the courtroom. Detailed field notes were used to document and
describe activities and interactions, to detail concrete descriptions of what I observed
happening in the court, to describe the setting, to record basic information relating to
the legal representation of parents, and number of court matters and conferences heard
on any given day. Field notes were later typed up in more detail and included notes on
my thoughts and impressions as recommended by a number of authors including
Marshall and Rossman (1999).
Data collection Stage Two: semi-structured interviews
(a) Interviews with magistrates, lawyers and court staff
Stage Two of the data collection involved semi-structured interviews with magistrates,
lawyers and court staff who worked in the Children’s Court. The primary focus of these
interviews was to gain their perspectives on how parents and families experience the
protection and care proceeding process in the Children’s Court. Prompts that were
based around a number of themes that emerged from prior reading and early court
observations were used. Stage Two also involved continuing participant observation to
enable a more multi-faceted perspective of the workings of the Children’s Court.
Drawing on information gathered through the research literature, from informal
discussions and early court observations, a series of broad questions emerged about
113
how parents and families experienced the child protection court process. I employed a
semi-structured interviewing strategy that traditionally uses prompts beginning with
something like “can you tell me about…”, or “what are your impressions about…” The
use of a series of prompts was chosen in this research in order to allow participants the
freedom to provide detailed descriptions of their experiences, particularly for parents
and families, and so that the analysis would not be informed by my assumptions. As
stated by Punch (1998), this sort of qualitative data is appealing to researchers who are
keen to capture directly the lived experience of people, as was the case here.
A semi-structured interview framework was developed for interviews with magistrates,
lawyers and court staff in the research (see Appendix H). The interviews were
structured around the following prompts:
• How parents experience the court process
• The mention list process
• The pre-hearing conference process
• The trial process
• Availability and/or access to legal representation
• The impact of the new legislation
• Language used in the court
• Spaces and design in the Children’s Court
This interview framework was pre-tested by a lawyer to ensure the prompts were clear
and relevant to the overall research aims and questions. The use of prompts allowed me
more flexibility in probing, and more decision-making flexibility in determining when
it was appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or even to undertake new
areas of inquiry that were not originally included or envisaged in the interview
framework. The interviews were conversational in nature. As much as possible, I
followed the interview framework; however, many interesting issues arose that I was
keen to explore further. There were a number of identifiable issues and preoccupations
that came up during the interviews which had not been anticipated. At the conclusion of
114
the interview, the interviewees were asked if they had any suggestions for change.
The interviews were conducted in various locations that ensured privacy. Magistrates
and court staff who voluntarily agreed to be interviewed were variously interviewed in
court chambers, the chambers library or at a near-by coffee shop. While lawyers were
given the option to be interviewed in the chambers library, they all opted to be
interviewed at either their office or at the coffee shop near the court building. All
interviews lasted between one to one-and-a-half hours.
(b) Interviews with parents and families
Semi-structured interviews with parents and families who were involved in an active
protection and care matter took place. A semi-structured interview framework was
developed for interviews with parents and families (see Appendix I). This interview
framework differed slightly from that used with magistrates, lawyers and court staff.
Prompts in relation to the purpose of the pre-hearing conference and implementation of
the new State child-protection legislation were excluded from the interview framework
for parents and families. Therefore the interviews with parents and families were
structured around the following prompts:
• How parents experience the court process
• The mention list process
• Impressions of the pre-hearing conference process
• The trial process
• Availability and/or access to legal representation
• Language used in the court
• Spaces and design in the Children’s Court
Parents and families were given the option to be interviewed in an interview room
made available by the Children’s Court, at a local coffee shop near to the court, their
115
place of work, or in their home. I sought to maximise the participants’ cooperation and
so was flexible with preferences for location, day and time of interview.
Interviews with parents and families lasted anywhere between one to two hours. The
issue of timing of the interview was significant. Initially it was anticipated that it would
be more convenient that the interviews with parents and families take place directly
following the pre-hearing conference. However, parents were quite clear in saying to
me that they did not want to stay within the court building for any longer than they had
to. Most parents opted for the interview to be conducted in their home, their place of
work, or at a public space.
For all of the interviews, voluntary consent to participate in the research and use of
information gained in the interview was gathered from all interviewees through a
written informed consent. All interviewees were provided with an Information Sheet
and Consent Form (see appendices E and F). The form outlined that participation was
anonymous and voluntary, that the participant could choose not to answer any
questions, and they could stop the interview at any time.
I asked all interviewees for their permission for the interview to be audio-taped, then
transcribed and word-processed. It was explained that the tape recording allowed a
complete and accurate record of participant responses, and allowed me to concentrate
solely on the interview process. Interviewees were advised that they had the right to
stop the recording at any time, and after the interview, they had the right to listen to the
recording, review the transcript, and indicate if there were portions of the interview that
they wanted to be deleted.
Once the interviewee and I signed the consent form, I commenced the interview by
asking interviewees about their overall impressions of how parents experience the
protection and care court process. Interviewees were then asked for their perspective of
116
the mention list process, the pre-hearing conference process, trial process, access and
availability of legal representation in the Children’s Court, court language, and of the
spaces and layout of the Children’s Court building.
(ii) Sampling
The intention of the research was to gain in-depth information from a small number of
people, an approach Patton (2002) states can be very valuable, especially if the cases
are information-rich. The number of interviews remained flexible.
The sampling strategy for this research began as a search for information-rich cases
(Patton, 1990) to study individuals who had either direct professional or personal
experience and involvement in protection and care court proceedings. Two types of
purposeful sampling strategies (Patton, 2002) were used: a maximum variation
sampling strategy was used for lawyers, and an intensity sampling strategy was used for
magistrates, court staff, parents and families.
A maximum variation sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was used for lawyers. This
sampling strategy involves intentionally selecting a wide range of variation on
dimensions of interest. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) refer to maximum variation
sampling as a process of deliberately selecting a heterogeneous sample and observing
commonalities in their experiences. In this case, the heterogeneous sample of lawyers
was drawn from a broad range of agencies that appeared regularly in the protection and
care court at the time of the observation phase of the study. It was considered important
to gain as wide a cross-section of lawyers for the interview sample as possible, given
that perspectives of the court process would likely vary depending on which party to
the proceedings the lawyer represented — for example, lawyers representing the State
would likely have different perspectives from lawyers representing parents and
families. Lawyers from the Department for Child Protection (DCP), Aboriginal Legal
Services, Legal Aid and private practitioners representing parents and children
constituted the interview sample. All lawyers approached for an interview agreed to be
117
interviewed, with the exception of two private practitioners who initially agreed, but
then cancelled the interview due to scheduling difficulties.
An intensity sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was used for magistrates, court staff,
parents and families. This strategy dictates that the sample consists of “information-rich
cases that manifest the phenomenon of interest intensely, but not extremely” (Patton
1990:171). In this case, all magistrates working at the Children’ Court of Western
Australia were approached for an interview, and the full-time court staff who work
predominantly in the protection and care courts were approached for an interview.
There was no bias of magistrates interviewed, given that they all rotated on their circuit
schedule throughout the data collection timeframe. This rotating basis allowed the
researcher to observe all magistrates in the court and pre-hearing conference settings.
An intensity sampling strategy was used to identify parents and families who had
specifically participated in a pre-hearing conference on the days that I attended the
court (usually Mondays) between February 2008 and July 2008. In the case of parents
and families, attendance and participation in a pre-hearing conference was the
eligibility criterion for selection in the interview sample. The pre-hearing conference
usually takes place two to four months into the court proceedings; therefore,
participation at a pre-hearing conference signals that parents and families would have
experience of, and some insight into the court process. It was presumed that they were
likely to have a more neutral and objective perspective of the court process at the point
of the pre-hearing conference, rather than at the end of the court proceedings when the
case outcome could likely affect their perspective of the actual court process. Hence,
parents and families were approached following the pre-hearing conference. For the
timing of the pre-hearing conference and therefore the interview, see the flow chart of
court process in the Children’s Court of Western Australia (appendices B and C).
A number of Children’s Court demographic studies conducted both in Australia and
internationally have indicated that parents with a disability, a mental illness, a
118
substance misuse problem, single parents and parents living in poverty are more
vulnerable, as are their children, to having parenting and child welfare concerns
(Murphy et al., 1991, Taylor at al., 1991; McConnell et al., 2000, Swain et al., 2002).
These variables were not accounted for or considered in the sampling of parents and
families in this research.
Research by Reich (2005) on parents in the child protection system in the United States
highlighted the importance of identifying parents’ race or ethnicity of the people she
studied, stating that “without a doubt race shapes the system processes and the
experiences of those within it” (2005:23). In terms of the demographics of this study,
all but one of the parents interviewed in this research were Caucasian. One mother who
was interviewed identified herself as Indigenous and none of the parents identified
themselves as of culturally and linguistically diverse background. It is important to note
that research shows evidence that the proportion of Indigenous families involved in
child protection court proceedings is much higher than the sample in this research
indicates.
All magistrates and court staff approached agreed to be interviewed. The recruitment of
parents and families proved to be more difficult than had originally been anticipated
due to the fact that while some parents initially agreed to be interviewed, a number of
them later cancelled on the day of the interview, or changed their minds due to practical
difficulties in making arrangements to meet at a later date. As a consequence, a number
of interview arrangements were initiated and never commenced.
The views of children involved in protection and care proceedings were not included in
this research. Since the enactment of the Act in 2006, children are no longer required to
be sighted by the magistrate in the Children’s Court and are not expected to be present
in the court for any of the proceedings. Children’s experiences and perspectives of the
child protection process are of critical importance and pose different research questions
to the ones that this research has sought to explore. The absence of children’s voices in
119
this research does not suggest a lack of empathy for the children, nor their experiences
and histories. To adequately acknowledge the voices of children, who these children
are, and their perspectives of the child protection process, a thorough and rigorous
separate investigation would be required. My hope would be that in a court system,
their voice could be heard more strongly. I hope this research can contribute to
increasing the realisation that their views are also central to informing a process of
change.
Initially, it was hoped that the perspectives of caseworkers employed by the statutory
child protection agency in Western Australia would be included in the interview
sample. However, the DCP employment policy guidelines state that caseworkers are
prohibited from participating in external research, and from being interviewed by any
outside body regarding the agency and its practices. Special dispensation is required by
DCP employees to participate in external research. A decision was made to not request
a sample of caseworkers from DCP for this research due to the anticipated difficulties
in obtaining approval, as well as the fact that caseworkers rarely have an active role in
protection and care court proceedings. The majority of caseworkers arrive at the court
just prior to their matter being called, usually only to observe the matter being heard,
and then often leave the court building immediately following the hearing.
In total, twenty-seven interviews were conducted, including: magistrates (six
interviews), court staff (two interviews), legal representatives (eleven interviews) and
parents and family (eight interviews). Key Australian and international court studies
such as those of McConnell et al. (2000), Swain et al. (2002) and Petrucci (2002)
included a similar sample size of 29 or 30 participant interviews in their respective
research. The following chart details, with pseudonyms, the profile of the participants
in the sample.
120
Table 1. Profile of participants in the sample
Pseudonym Interview Number
Gender Role Agency Location of Interview
1 M Lawyer DCP UWA 2 M Lawyer DCP Café 3 F Lawyer Legal Aid Children’s Court 4 F Lawyer Legal Aid Café 5 F Lawyer Legal Aid Legal Aid 6 M Lawyer ALS ALS 7 M Lawyer ALS ALS 8 F Court staff Children’s Court Children’s Court 9 F Court staff Children’s Court Children’s Court 10 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Café 11 F Lawyer Legal Aid Legal Aid 12 F Lawyer Legal Aid Children’s Court 13 M Magistrate Children’s Court Children’s Court 14 M Magistrate Children’s Court Children’s Court 15 M Magistrate Children’s Court Children’s Court 16 M Magistrate Children’s Court Children’s Court 17 F Magistrate Children’s Court Children’s Court 18 F Magistrate Children’s Court Office 19 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Café 20 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Office 21 M Parent / Family Parent / Family Office 22 M Lawyer DCP DCP 23 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Parents’ home 24 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Parents’ home 25 F Parent / Family Parent / Family Parents’ home 26 M Parent / Family Parent / Family Parents’ home 27 M Lawyer DCP DCP
During the participant-observation phase of the study, numerous short conversations
were held with court staff and lawyers in the waiting room areas before, during and
after mentions and in-between matters being called in the court. These conversations
and interactions have not been counted or tallied as official ‘interviews’; however, these
conversations have been recorded as part of the participant-observation notes.
121
(iii) The ethics of researching
Traditional ethical concerns in research have revolved around the topics of informed
consent: the consent received from the participants after they have been carefully and
truthfully informed about the research; the participants’ right to privacy; protecting the
identity of the participants; and protection from harm (Fontana & Frey, 1994).
There are a number of important ethical considerations in conducting qualitative
research of this nature. Ethical practice issues, presentation of self, integrity in how I
report my research and an awareness of bias have all been considered in this research.
It was important that my questions were seen to be free of perceived interviewer bias by
a majority of legally trained interviewees, particularly given my social work and
psychology background. Other ethical considerations in conducting this research have
included maintaining a non-partisan research position, and not passing judgment based
on my own personal values and ideals. Adhering to the research purpose and paying
careful attention to the research aims has been important to ensure that only activities
and findings relating to that aim were researched.
Conducting research of this nature also requires ethical considerations around
professional and relationship ethics. Given the particularly sensitive nature of the
information heard during data collection, specifically in relation to the names of
children, and nature of the information disclosed during the proceedings, it was
essential to ensure the data collected were properly managed and reported, the privacy
of the children and families was respected, and their identities protected. Choosing to
leave the courtroom when I recognised a parent who was personally involved in
protection proceedings is an example of respecting a family’s privacy. Consideration
also had to be given to protecting the identity and views of the magistrates and lawyers
interviewed, given the relatively small size of the protection and care jurisdiction and
legal profession in Western Australia.
122
Participants were given the right to refuse or withdraw from the research at any time,
without prejudice or bias. I have been mindful that on occasion this may have been the
parents’ first (and perhaps only) opportunity to ‘tell their story’ and to have someone
listen, an opportunity to share their feelings about their process with a neutral but
interested listener. For some of these families, this was the first time they had shared
some of their most personal and private stories. This required my adherence to
managing the interviews sensitively, as there was a very real risk of interviews and
questions about their court experience ‘opening old wounds’.
Human subjects research ethics approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC) at the University of Western Australia (see Appendix J for the
approval documentation). Adhering to the ethics committee requirement to offer
referral for counselling when necessary, or offering to cease the interview at any point
without judgment or bias, were important ethical practice issues for me to consider and
be prepared for. It was important and necessary to assure research participants of
confidentiality, that University ethics approval was obtained for the research, and they
had the right to decline any question or withdraw from the research at any time, without
question or prejudice. It was also gratifying that no-one withdrew from or needed
referral for counselling services.
Interpersonal considerations such as building trust, maintaining good relations,
respecting norms of reciprocity, sensitively considering ethical issues, thinking about
my role in the setting and considering how this may affect participants’ willingness to
engage, were all important considerations to make prior and during the research
process. Awareness of implications of covert/overt fieldwork was relevant to my
participant observations, given that I did not publicly identify myself in the courtroom,
whereas in pre-hearing conference I did identify myself and the reason for my presence.
Building rapport with research participants was essential to being able to conduct this
research. How I introduced myself, how I acknowledged my appreciation for
123
participants’ involvement, interest and time in the research, how I introduced the
research, its purpose and the importance of participants’ involvement, were all
important considerations in conducting this research. Balancing appropriate formality
and rapport was at times challenging, and required staying attuned to my role and
position within the research.
In terms of presentation of self, it was important that I considered how I would locate
myself in the research and what role I would take. Would I be seen as a neutral
observer, a former caseworker of the Department for Child Protection, a social worker,
a 30-year-old female Caucasian, a pregnant woman? How I presented, how I was
interpreted, and how I explained myself as a pregnant woman seeking to interview
parents about their very recent separation from their own child caused a number of
concerns for me. How I made sense of this experience in the context of the world of
child protection is explored in greater detail in the story of my research journey that
follows in the second part of this chapter.
(iv) Data analysis
Analysis of Phase One — participant observation data
In this research I used a mix of both manifest and content analysis (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998) as I had pre-determined categories of interest based upon a therapeutic
jurisprudence framework prior to data analysis (manifest content analysis), and I was
also interested in seeing more specific themes emerge from these broad constructs
(latent content analysis).
The first level of analysis took place during the first phase of the data collection.
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), this form of analysis during data collection
lets the fieldworker ‘cycle back and forth’ between thinking about the existing data, and
generating strategies for collecting new and often better quality data. Further, these
authors state that this approach makes the analysis an ongoing, lively enterprise that is
linked to the energising effects of fieldwork. In this research, the data collection and
124
analysis were interwoven from the beginning.
A qualitative data analysis approach was used to analyse the information collected
during the first observation stage of the study. An inductive analysis approach was
used, an approach that is reported to work well when the terrain is unfamiliar, when a
single case is involved, and the intent is exploratory and descriptive (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The inductive analysis uses the content analysis technique, where
patterns emergent in the data are sought (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Using a grounded approach, participant observation data were analysed. Themes and
patterns that emerged from the participant observation data were teased out. Issues seen
to be significant to the protection and care court proceeding process that were suitable
for inclusion in the interview framework were also identified. The themes which
emerged were related back to the original research questions. Recurring themes and
patterns in the data were identified, and informed the development of prompts that were
used for the semi-structured interviews (see Appendix H & I).
These prompts were sorted into three main categories reflecting the different
components of the Children’s Court and its operation, and were based on a category
structure drawn from Allen’s (2001) analysis of the therapeutic elements of the family
law process. These categories included the following:
• Structural elements
• Attitudinal elements
• Physical elements
Analysis of Phase Two — interview data
The same qualitative analysis approach was used to analyse data gathered in the semi-
structured interviews. The first stage of the analysis of the interview data was a
preliminary thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Miles and Huberman (1994)
suggest that in thematic analysis, one looks for repetition of issues and themes, and for
125
similarities and differences in themes and patterns. Points of interest and emerging
concepts were noted. This thematic analysis was done first according to the prompts
used in the interview framework. My original intention was to sort the prompts and data
according to the analytic framework suggested by Allen (2001). I had an expectation
that my data would fit well into the scaffold described by Allen whereby the therapeutic
elements of the Children’s Court would be categorised into three groups — structural,
attitudinal and physical elements.
In Allen’s view, structural elements included conferences, or interviewing processes;
attitudinal elements included levels of adversarialism, how people speak in the
courtroom, body language of lawyers, or the inclusion of graduation ceremonies for
completed treatment or reunification programs; concrete or physical elements included
courtroom layout and design considerations, or the physical presentation of the arbiter
or authority figures.
While my original goal was to use the analytic framework suggested by Allen, in
analysing the research data I found that all of the participants viewed their experiences
to be associated with relationships and processes, and in particular with space and
power as important factors.
Responses to each prompt were analysed for relevant themes that emerged. From this
prompt-by-prompt analysis, specific categories were identified according to their
relevance to the study area (Patton, 2002). How findings related to previous research
and the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence was also noted in this process.
The process of coding and analysis that I used involved sorting. I started by identifying
a number of the broadest categories. I put important pieces of data that included quotes
from interviewees, a vignette, or an associated insight recorded during note taking on
individual pages. I then sorted the pages by putting them into categories. Ten categories
were developed:
126
• Court appearances
• Duration of protection proceedings
• Stages of protection proceedings
• Court environment
• Nature of protection proceedings
• Legal representation
• Magistrates
• Protection Orders
• Negotiating outcomes — trials and consents
• Legislation
Transcripts were then coded for these particular categories. The use of codes helped
organise the data according to themes that I recognised and allowed the data to be
reorganised to areas central to this research (Minichello, 1990).
The second stage of the analysis of the interview data involved interpreting the data for
associations between the issues. At this time propositions started to emerge from these
associations and patterns which had already emerged in the interview data. Similarly to
the analysis of the participant observation data, the content analysis technique was used
to analyse and classify the interview data as themes, concepts and meanings. Some of
the themes were developed prior to the analysis, a number of which were based on
themes identified in earlier research (McConnell et al., 2000; Swain et al., 2002). Other
themes developed as the analysis progressed. In total, 34 themes were developed and
were sorted into five broad overarching concepts:
• Feeling silenced and invisible
• The nature of proceedings
• Space and power in the courtroom
• Legal representation
• Jurisdictional arrangements
127
Analysis of Phase Three — observation data
Further triangulation of the interview and observation data offered me the opportunity
to combine strategies which allowed the development of a more multi-faceted
perspective and broad investigation of the research problem. The thematic analysis of
the literature and Phase One of the participant observation data were linked to the
development of prompts used in interviews. The interview data were then linked with
Phase Three of participant observation.
In further triangulating the interview and observations data, three levels emerged
according to the potential for change at the micro procedural level, meso policy level,
and macro conceptual level. Micro level considerations that were identified relate to
issues of process, procedures and roles of actors in the legal system. These
considerations are presented within a framework of ‘participation in the legal system’
and include the following:
• Communication and time
• Nature of the court process
• The pre-hearing conference process
• The role of the magistrate
• Provision of information
• Nature of negotiations
• Locating the protection and care jurisdiction
Further triangulation and analysis of these micro level considerations pointed to broader
access to justice issues, suggesting that change is also needed at a meso level to effect
policy level considerations. These considerations are presented within a framework of
‘access to justice’ and include the following:
• Legal assistance
• Court resources
• Rigidity vs. flexibility
• Legislative considerations
128
Further triangulation of the data indicated that in better facilitating participation and
access to justice in the legal system, there is also a need for change at a broader macro
level. The macro level considerations that were identified were in relation to the
following areas:
• The nature and place of the law
• The culture of adversarialism
• Inherent power imbalances in practice
• Relationships
• Existing court culture
Throughout the following chapters, excerpts from the interview transcripts are
presented to qualify the findings. Links are made between interview and observation
findings to establish whether they support each other, and to discover what similarities
and differences there are in issues and associations. Prior to presenting the results of the
data, I reflect on my research journey. I do this in order to provide a context for my
analysis and findings that follow.
5.4 MY RESEARCH JOURNEY
Within the writings on qualitative methodology and ethnography, there is a well-
established tradition of reflecting on the researcher’s own social location as a factor
influencing both observation and analyses (Bell & Encel, 1978; Finlay & Gough,
2003). While this tradition is not recognised across all disciplines, I chose to include it
here as it provides another layer and lens to help place my research in context.
Drawing on my observational material I provide a personal description of the people
and place of the court, in order to capture the research arena of the Perth Children’s
Court. I describe my presence in the chaos of the court, and a snapshot in time of these
families’ lives. The reflection of my research journey captures the process, the
relationships, the culture and the tensions evident in the court. I explore the complexity
129
of this research and what it means to me in this part of the thesis. This reflection
provides a context for my analysis and findings. While all of this covers the people, the
place and interpretations of me as a female research student, I have captured my
reflections under three main themes: the people, the distress, the non-distress; the
meanings of space; and my pregnant pause.
When I recall a statement attributed to the former Family Court Judge, Justice John
Fogarty that ‘The Children’s Court is the most important court we have’, I think about
how crucial decisions for children that will last a lifetime are made here. Yet, as an
institution that had been constructed specifically for and about children and their
families, the Children’s Court seemed to carry out its business oblivious to the
emotional reactions that are experienced by the people within the walls of the court.
Arguably, when one looks through the front door of the Children’s Court, past the
airport-style security X-ray machine, society’s priorities are evident insofar as it
appears to send a message that its job is the protection of children. The Children’s
Court deals with the most important members of society, yet to me, the stress, the pain,
and the sadness of the children and parents in the protection and care court is palpable.
As a researcher, I am grateful that young children rarely physically appear in protection
proceedings. The odd baby that is nursed by its nervous mother, who is attending a
‘mention’, served as a reminder to me of the vulnerability of both mother and child.
I commenced the research on a Monday morning, the court’s busiest day of the week.
By 9.15 a.m., the cramped waiting room area adjoining the two protection and care
courts is full with thirty or more parents, relatives, court workers, lawyers and
caseworkers. The protection and care waiting room area is now too small to contain the
increasing number of families, lawyers and caseworkers who attend the court each day.
The shortage of space within the court means that lawyers and caseworkers are forced
to consult with parents and families in the cramped waiting room areas, or they stand in
the hallways, in clusters of three or four. It is easy to overhear details of personal pain
130
and suffering. It is easy to hear children’s names. It is very apparent that privacy in
these spaces is not an option or has not been considered.
Child protection court proceedings can be very distressing, and the overcrowding can
contribute to the distress, anxiety and agitation of those who are at the court. Lawyers
are walking to and fro between caseworkers and anxious parents. The atmosphere is
tense. Parents look confused and nervous. Lawyers look relaxed, perhaps because they
know what to do. One by one, families are summoned by loudspeaker into Courtroom 5
or Courtroom 6 for mention, their names being broadcast throughout the court building.
By 10.15 a.m., the crowd has thinned, their matters listed for contest concluded, stood
down, mediated or adjourned.
I watch as in the majority of cases, parents inevitably consent to a protection order.
Some say they have no other option. On particularly sad days I watch the parent who
defends their case at trial, either with the assistance of a lawyer, or in some
circumstances, where they represent themselves. On occasions, I watch the magistrate
hand down the decision as to whether a protection order will be granted by the court, I
see some parents’ response and reaction to this decision, and often leave feeling that the
Children’s Court is possibly the saddest place on earth, where there are rarely, if ever,
any happy endings.
As I conduct the research, I am aware of carrying my own tensions about how a court
can balance the needs of children and families, and my determination to maintain a
non-partisan research position. These feelings arise more often than not, when I watch
or read horrific stories of child abuse. A recent documentary on the failings of the
Northern Territory child protection system gave examples of some tragic cases where
innocent children died in the most horrific of circumstances, at the hands of their
parents or carers. I am struck by the immense challenges that many of these parents
face, each and every day. I also observe some matters where the actions of parents are
so inexcusable it is difficult to listen to the court proceedings. But more often I am left
131
feeling a sense of sadness for some parents whose situations, poor choices, or histories
had led them into the web of child protection.
Reflecting on the children for whom the court system was created, and the children
whose lives and futures are at the hands of the magistrates of the court, I think about the
almost 34,000 children and young people in care at any one time in Australia. As I
undertake the research, I am mindful throughout that I am researching the future of
children’s lives being determined, yet they seem disembodied beings in the court
context. In this thesis it would seem there is little discussion of the children, of their
experiences or of their thoughts about the child protection legal and court process. The
absence of children’s voices in this research does not suggest a lack of empathy for the
children, nor their experiences and histories.
When I think about my experience of collecting data in the Children’s Court, I am
reminded that my presence as an outsider was apparent in a courthouse where virtually
all the lawyers and magistrates and court staff seemed to know each other well. At
times people were unsure how to treat me. Most people working within the court knew
I was a research student. The security staff who were unaware of my research topic or
aims seemed more apprehensive and suspicious of my presence than others.
Understandably, because of their role perhaps, security staff questioned me with an
attitude that appeared to suggest they had no understanding of my place. While not all
lawyers were initially aware of the reasons for my presence in the court, this changed in
time when I was able to explain the nature and purpose of my research. I was mindful
of how responses of security staff and lawyers can set the scene for a very alienating
experience for parents who are already anxious.
The Children’s Court is small, with a handful of lawyers appearing each day, and a
small number of court staff overseeing security, announcements and assisting the
presiding magistrate. Between each matter being heard, a staff member clears the
courtroom so that the only people sitting in the gallery are those directly involved in the
132
case or lawyers who are awaiting their case to be called. Outside the courtroom,
lawyers move in and out of small groups where they meet their clients, while parents
who are waiting for their case to be called wait in the hallways or in the waiting room
area. Cases are heard very quickly, and lawyers who already know each other talk
loudly about the cases in abbreviations, code and jargon both during and between
proceedings.
I regularly heard lawyers say during proceedings that they were requesting section 240
leave, or they referred to section 143(2)b of the Act, or section 148, or a 143 proposal,
ex parte final orders or a minute of consent, and I was reminded that I was a stranger in
a strange land, and often wondered what this would all mean to parents. It was
immediately apparent to me that this milieu could not be easy for parents, many of
whom spent only a few minutes in the courtroom compared to the hours I spent each
day observing proceedings. When I began my courtroom observations, I attended court,
I sat in the waiting room areas, I watched court proceedings, and attended pre-hearing
conferences. When the proceedings or conference concluded I would immediately
summarise my observations of the proceedings. I also documented separately the legal
references and codes that were referred to in court each day. Returning home in the
evenings I would type up the observation notes and explanations of the legal references.
I watched as magistrates made decisions about children and families and over time,
began to understand the flow of cases, the statutory requirements, and the vocabulary of
the system.
On some occasions I was able to follow a specific case over time by attending the next
scheduled mention. I also began interviewing parents. Once I had undertaken a number
of observations and I was more familiar with the court and its processes, I began
approaching parents at the end of their pre-hearing conference. I would ask parents if
they would be willing to talk with me about their experiences of the Children’s Court.
The interviews with parents took place at a nearby coffee shop or at parents’ homes and
in one case, at their place of work. It concerned me that my research was an added
133
burden to parents who had already gone through a difficult time, although none of the
parents reacted negatively, and all thanked me and indeed a large number of them said
they had never been able to tell their story before, and that gaining an interested
audience was something they said they rarely experienced.
Children’s courts are full of raw emotion. As a researcher I had to stay detached and
separate from what I heard (as many in the court do) although there were some
occasions when I struggled with the emotions and the non-partisan research position,
and developed an even stronger understanding of the complexity of these families. On
one occasion I observed court proceedings in a case where a father was in prison after
continually sexually abusing his two young daughters, to the knowledge of their
mother. For reasons unknown to me, the eldest of the two daughters was sitting in the
courtroom with her grandparents when the case was heard, and I felt overwhelmed with
sadness and horror at seeing this innocent little girl in front of me. It was an occasion
when I understood why decisions are sometimes made not to allow children to live with
their parents again.
Returning to earlier observations about the significance of space, the formality and
tradition of the court and legal system is immediately apparent as everyone bows to the
magistrate who enters the waiting courtroom. Courtroom symbolism such as the
elevated bench, the coat of arms that sit on the wall behind the magistrate, is a reminder
to all of the relationships of power evident in the courtroom setting.
Clearly, much thought has gone into the design and layout of the Perth Children’s
Court. A little natural light peeps in at the top of the courtroom. The inside of the
courtroom has soft neutral coloured walls. Simple and unobtrusive colours have been
used on the exterior and interior of the court building. The courtroom layout is simple
and uncluttered in its design. The chairs are comfortable, and it seems the room has
been decorated in an attempt to create a sense of calm. The curved walls in both the
main building and in the chambers reflect a more peaceful sense of space than sharp,
134
straight walls. A small internal courtyard which is located off the main waiting room
area lets in natural light and the prospect of air and freedom, but unfortunately is
permanently locked.
The courtrooms contain video-conferencing facilities to enable parents to participate in
court proceedings if they are located in remote areas or are in prison. The use of video
conferencing seems to reduce the tension, anxiety and feelings of stress that were
apparent over a decade ago when I was a caseworker sitting in the courtroom, and
parents who were in prison were brought into the courtroom, with accompanying armed
security guards and handcuffs.
During the court-observation phase of my data collection I spent some time in the
Family Court of Western Australia. I was interested in how the internal spaces of that
court worked. When I entered the building I noticed a sign saying there were child-
minding facilities available within the court, and noted that this was something the
Children’s Court did not offer. In the waiting room areas I noticed there were more
private, partitioned spaces where estranged family members did not have to see each
other while they waited for their matter to be called. I noticed coffee, drinks and
vending machines for families while they waited and passed the time. I noticed higher
ceilings, more light and a more open, calming sense of space.
As I am sitting in the court, my mind goes back to a visit in 2006 to the Melbourne
Children’s Court, a purpose-built court that opened in 1999. I was struck by a number
of things about that building and its spaces. The design philosophy of the building was
based on openness, accessibility and respect, and these features were obvious in the
physical reality. I noticed immediately the geographical separation of the family
division from the criminal division, something I had not seen before. Upon entering the
court building, there are two separate staircases: one that leads upstairs to the right hand
side of the building, to the family division, and the other staircase leads upstairs to the
left hand side of the building, to the criminal division. These divisions are physically
135
separated, are mirror images of each other, and they share one court registry.
I noticed almost immediately the internal spaces of the family division. There was a
large window allowing much natural light into the main foyer that doubled as the
waiting room. While there were many parents and children milling around and waiting,
some even sitting on the floor, the atmosphere was busy yet open. Parents and families
could have a coffee from a vending machine while they waited, they could have a
coffee in the Salvation Army room where chatty, approachable and happy volunteers
were working, or they could buy a snack from the vending machines. Parents also had
the option to call into the Court Network office, a service providing free voluntary
support to parents and families appearing in protection and care matters. The walls of
the Court Network office were covered in colourful, bright images, and brochures and
pamphlets on support services for parents and families were available. The office was
staffed by caring and supportive volunteers who would help parents and families on the
day of their court appearance, either by guiding parents through the court process,
through the actual court or sit with them in court. While the Court Network office was a
small space, it had a warm, friendly and approachable atmosphere.
The second thing that struck me about the Melbourne Children’s Court was a bronze
plaque that hung on the entry wall of the court building that read “The future will judge
us by the way we treat our children”. I scribbled it down, I thought this was symbolic.
At the back of my mind I wondered if one day the quote might read as the heading for
my thesis. The former Victorian premier John Cain quoted this phrase in his speech for
the triumphant opening of the Melbourne Children’s Court building in 1999. A number
of Victorian commentators have since made reference to this plaque, and many of these
comments seem to sum up the current state of the child protection system. One
commentator said: “It’s a bad joke in brass”; others have said; “The plaque is hard to
miss, and so is the irony”; and others have stated; “The homily on the plaque remains
unheeded”.
136
When reflecting on the perception of me as a female research student, I think about my
‘pregnant pause’ during my research journey. When I think about the unique experience
of being pregnant during portions of my data collection and about the implications of
this in terms of my research, I am reminded of some of the unique insights that this
circumstance provided and that I had not anticipated.
More than three-quarters of my data collection was done while I was pregnant. I
continued in court until my ninth month of pregnancy. Early into my court observations
I tried to hide my pregnancy under loose clothing. In doing so, I imagined that I would
be less obvious or visible to those I was observing. I was worried about being pregnant
during my data collection for a number of reasons. Initially I had worried that my
pregnant status could be interpreted as being cruel or uncaring towards the parents I
interviewed about their experience of having their own child removed and the ensuing
court process. I had also worried that my pregnancy could influence people taking me
as a serious researcher, particularly by the judge and magistrates who were supportive
of seeing this research completed.
I came to realise that the source of my anxiety and much of my concern were mixed
with my anxieties about being pregnant while trying to complete my doctorate, about
balancing motherhood and a fulfilling career. During the course of my writing I became
more aware of how women struggled to balance family and professional life.
Midway through my pregnancy, when I was no longer able to conceal it, it became part
of the discussion with the mothers and fathers that I interviewed. I was reminded of my
experience as a caseworker when many parents were largely distrusting of caseworkers
who did not have children of their own, whom they viewed as being unable to fully
understand their experience. I think being pregnant provided me access and a level of
credibility with parents. The sense of automatic disclosure that comes with being
obviously heavily pregnant, I think acted as a form of connection between the mothers I
interviewed and me.
137
My pregnancy seemed to be an important source of shared understanding with various
people in the court. Female lawyers seemed more willing to approach me and ask about
the progress of my research and pregnancy, and often shared anecdotes of their
experience of pregnancy or motherhood or balancing all of this with work life. These
conversations offered a sense of instant inclusion in what seemed like a closed group of
professionals who work together each day.
When I began this research, I was childless and unmarried, and by the time I completed
this thesis I was married with a two-year-old daughter. I had wondered throughout this
research journey if having a child of my own would make my research topic and
experience of observations too difficult to study. I wondered if my own experience
would change my observations.
My previous experience as a caseworker had given me an insight into the range of
actions or inactions of parents who come to the attention of DCP. Rather than feel
outrage or over-protectiveness by being a parent myself, I believe I am more conscious
now of the fine line that exists between parents with access to resources and parents
without access to resources. I regularly look at my daughter’s bruised knees from an
active life, a passion for challenge in the playground, a messy house, and wonder how
this would all appear to a young, inexperienced and overwhelmed caseworker, as I was
once. I think my own experience of having a child and the insight this has brought me,
has played a significant role in this research.
5.5 SUMMARY
This chapter sets out the theoretical framework that has guided and informed my
inquiry and approach. Decisions about research design and methods are outlined, and
the research participants and the research setting are described. The way in which the
data were collected and analysed is presented. Ethical considerations in conducting
qualitative research, and more specific ethical and relational issues I considered
138
important in conducting this research are also discussed.
In the second part of this chapter, I present a story of my research journey. By drawing
on my observational material I provide a detailed description of the people and place of
the court in order to capture the research arena of the Perth Children’s Court. The
reflection of my research journey captures the process, the relationships, the culture and
the tensions evident in the court. This reflection provides a context for my analysis and
findings. The reflection is included to provide another layer and lens to help place my
research in context.
The presentation of the results of the data begins in Chapter 6 by presenting the stories
of what parents and families told me about their experience of the child protection legal
and court process. Chapter 7 follows by exploring the participation in the legal system
of parents and families appearing in child protection court proceedings in Western
Australia and focuses on the potential for change at the micro procedural level. Chapter
8 presents the second set of findings that relate to access to justice for parents and
families and focuses on change at the meso policy level. The final chapter draws
together all of the findings, along with the therapeutic jurisprudence literature, to argue
that change is also needed at a broader, macro conceptual level.
As previously discussed in Chapter 3, many of the parents and families involved in
child-protection court proceedings often are experiencing multiple and multi-layered
problems. These parents and families are already coping with significant life stresses
including marginalisation through poverty, social isolation, addiction, disability and/or
minority status (Pelton 1989; Thorpe 1994; Fernandez 1996; McConnell et al., 2000;
Sheehan, 1997, 2001b; Swain et al., 2002; McConnell & Llewellyn, 2002). What
comes with belonging to such vulnerable populations is the disempowering position
that many of the parents and families find themselves in — many have struggled to
have a voice, to be heard, or to participate in finding the answers as to what works in
meeting the needs of those who appear in the Children’s Court.
In this chapter, I present the stories of what parents and families told me about their
experiences of the child protection legal and court process. The stories that are
presented in this chapter are predominantly about the feelings of parents and families,
and as such have been framed around the following six themes:
• Trauma
• Invisibility and silence
• Stress
• Intimidation
• Confusion
140
• Support and advocacy needs
For the purposes of this chapter, reference to the ‘legal and court process’ includes
attendance at court for mentions, hearings and trials, attendance at pre-hearing
conferences, and the process of obtaining, engaging and retaining legal representation.
See Glossary for a definition of these terms.
6.2 TRAUMA
I really think the bottom line is that this is probably one of the most unsupported groups of people, in any of the kind of ‘welfare areas’, and yet it’s the one area that makes the biggest life changing decisions, for children, for parents, for families, for siblings, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I guess at some level, it’s easier to get assistance if you’re a criminal — ’cause you get Legal Aid, you get advocacy, you get all kinds of things, if you’ve actually committed a criminal offence, than you can as a parent going through this process, and that’s sad.
Interview #10, Parent
Interviews with parents and families indicated there is an absence of attention to the
trauma and emotional reactions of parents and families involved in child-protection
court proceedings. Interviews highlighted the need for court staff and professionals to
have a genuine understanding of that distress and its implications for families. The
devastation that many parents experienced when long-term protection orders were
imposed was also mentioned as a cause of such trauma.
Interviews and observations indicated that the early court process often involves parents
who are still suffering distress and trauma following the removal of their child by the
statutory child protection agency. A general lack of appreciation for the genuine
distress that parents go through when a child is removed from their care was an issue
highlighted by the majority of parents in this research. One mother described her pain
and sense of loss in the following way:
141
A lot of parents, when their kids are apprehended go downwards emotionally, mentally, and they are criticised and judged to be incapable because they are depressed, and guess what sparked the depression…You know, separation from your kids is pretty traumatic, as long as your kids are away from you, you’re going to have that hole in you, I mean that only they can fill. The Department [DCP] doesn’t take into consideration the trauma involved, both on the kids and on the parents, and they wonder why we get upset and angry, you know they wonder why we don’t trust them anymore, so there’s a lot of misunderstanding there, a lot of not taking seriously the trauma involved in the apprehension process.
Interview #23, Parent During the early court proceedings, parents may or may not be aware of the location of
the out-of-home care placement of their child, adding to the distress and trauma. The
circumstances and manner in which the child was removed, whether a warrant was
issued, or whether police were involved can also contribute to the distress, shock and
confusion which many parents reported experiencing in the early stages of the court
proceedings. A number of magistrates and lawyers voiced a similar sentiment. One
lawyer commented:
The legal procedures such as apprehension and non-warranted apprehensions are really non-therapeutic for getting the result that the system needs and that means getting a child into care.
Interview #7, Lawyer
It is important to note that a number of lawyers were extremely sensitive and attuned to
parents’ experiences and their situations. While the following comment was made in
relation to the need for legal representation for parents, it highlights such insight and
sensitivity:
Ideally, everyone would be represented no matter which application is given, you know, taking people’s children away from them is worse than a jail sentence in many ways. You know, having your own liberty deprived is different from having somebody who is the centre of your life taken away. It’s a grief, it’s a loss, and it’s a death almost. So ideally everyone should be represented; at least given advice, given a lawyer to negotiate the scope and resolve all of the issues whether it goes to trial or not. That would be ideal.
Interview #12, Lawyer
142
A key issue that emerged from the data was the need to recognise the importance and
have a genuine understanding of the distress that many parents and families experience
as a result of the child protection system and process. Each interview that was
conducted with parents and families for this research highlighted this important point.
One lawyer put it this way:
So the children are highly distressed and the parents are highly distressed. If they react poorly to that, they are often penalised. The Department [DCP] will often say, “Well when we did this, you called us this name, or you got angry and threatened us”. There doesn’t seem to be any appreciation for the genuine distress that parents — even those who are dysfunctional or have huge problems — the genuine distress of having their children taken into care. So I think that that’s the starting point that people really need to realise
Interview #5, Lawyer
Another significant issue that was raised was the absence of attention to the genuine
trauma and devastation that many parents experienced when the Children’s Court
imposed a long-term protection order (until 18 years of age). Various interviews
touched on the magnitude and emotional implications of such an intervention on
children and their parents. One lawyer made the following comment in relation to such
long-term protection orders:
For a brand new baby who comes into care for an order till 18, people get less for murder. Eighteen years committed to the Department [DCP] — it could be the best thing that’s ever happened to you for some children or the worst.
Interview #4, Lawyer
Experiences of grief and loss have been identified in the literature as dominant
experiences with far reaching implications for parents who had a child or children
removed from their care. The literature reports and this research demonstrates, that it is
particularly important for professionals, members of the judiciary and lawyers working
in the court context to develop at least a basic understanding of parents’ reactions due
to grief, particularly that of depression. The literature reports that developing an
143
understanding of these grief reactions can prevent misinterpreting the reactions as
Furthermore, understanding parents’ and families’ experiences of grief and loss may
also assist in explaining why some parents struggle to maintain contact with their
children in care.
Research suggests that parents can be far more effective in meeting the needs of their
children in care and achieving positive relationships if their own pain is sensitively
acknowledged and worked with (Thomson & Thorpe, 2004). The same authors report
that particularly for caseworkers, a deeper understanding of loss could help clarify
appropriate ways of working with parents: to understand the life course impact of child
loss, non-finite loss and disenfranchised grief. The research highlights the importance
of acknowledging the parents’ trauma and emotional state when they enter the
Children’s Court and court proceedings commence.
6.3 INVISIBILITY AND SILENCE
One of the main challenges or difficulties parents face in participating in the legal process is being heard, absolutely, it’s a challenge to get a voice in the courts, and to be recognised that you know…that I’ve got rights, my child has rights.
Interview #10, Parent
A significant number of parents interviewed in this research spoke of feeling ‘silenced’
by the child protection legal system, specifically by the court processes, and of feeling
‘invisible’ during court proceedings. One parent referred to feeling “bullied by the
whole court process” and commented that all he was able to do was stand up and say
A common concern mentioned by various parents was in relation to how they would
often find themselves surrounded by professionals — lawyers, magistrates, and
144
caseworkers — who would be discussing them and the welfare of their child in their
presence, without actually addressing or including them in the discussion. One parent
described their feelings in the following way:
The only time I was specifically addressed was when I put my hand up and said “can I say something?” because all this stuff was being said, I mean I was in the room, but it was almost like I was invisible somehow, you know, and I felt very strongly about some of the things that were being said and wanted to amend some of that stuff.
Interview #10, Parent
A number of parents in this research commented on how the style and approach of the
individual magistrate could have a significant impact on their experience of feeling
either silenced by, or included in court proceedings. Lawyers and magistrates
acknowledged the significant variation in individual magistrates’ style and approach,
with some preferring to take a more ‘interventionist’ role, and others to remain
somewhat detached. The significance of this relates to the potential implications for
parents feeling either supported and encouraged to participate in court proceedings, or
intimidated and silenced by the presiding magistrate. One magistrate made the point
that ‘diffusing’ the tension and antagonism of the parents early in the process is
essential, “so that you can actually start being productive” (Interview #16, Magistrate).
It is evident in the research literature that there has been a lack of inclusion of parents
and families themselves in finding the answers as to what works in meeting the needs
of families who are involved in child protection matters, a theme that was reiterated in
this research. Previous Australian Children’s Court research similarly found that for
parents with disabilities, there is little opportunity throughout the court process for their
voices to be heard (McConnell et al., 2000). These problems can be exacerbated when
parents do not file an affidavit and/or are not given the chance to speak by the
magistrate during proceedings. Interviews with parents in this research highlighted the
common experience of them feeling invisible and silenced during court proceedings,
which goes against the increasing realisation of the need to include this primary
145
consumer group to inform policies and practices that will benefit children and young
people, and families involved in child protection practices (Harries, 2008).
6.4 STRESS
Legal processes are often criticised for being lengthy, complicated and stressful, adding
to already complex issues for parents. Interviews with parents and families suggest that
stress may act as a barrier to engaging in the legal process, continuing with the legal
process, or preventing them from participating effectively during court proceedings.
One parent interviewed in this research described the feeling of having to return to
court regularly in the following way:
I didn’t attend court every time, because I had a lawyer that could do that for me, and I didn’t have to go through all that trauma again. Initially I went with my lawyer every time, then when I felt like I was basically drowning, and that I did not have a hope, because I wasn’t being heard, I wasn’t being listened to, anything that was brought up was basically manipulated or not listened to.
Interview #10 Parent
The stress and trauma that many of these parents reported experiencing as a result of
having their child removed may also lead to problems with understanding what is
occurring during court proceedings. This is a common concern that has similarly been
noted in research on parents with disabilities who are involved in child protection
proceedings in the Children’s Court. Magistrates and lawyers also commented that
court proceedings can be extremely stressful and confusing for parents. One lawyer
stated:
I would imagine if the question is from the parents’ perspective, then I think it’s a living nightmare. And you’re confronted with — you don’t have information, you’re struggling with this huge emotional devastation of having your children removed. You’ve got to deal with the Department [DCP] and let’s be honest, they’re inflexible. They don’t return phone calls. I think they do their best, but they’re under-resourced.
Interview #5, Lawyer
146
The majority of parents interviewed in this research made reference to the stress and
negative impact that frequent delays and lengthy court proceedings have on parents and
families in the Children’s Court, issues that can be exacerbated for those parents who
have a mental illness or disability. Research has indicated that people with a mental
illness can become overwhelmed by their legal issues and that as a result, they may
avoid addressing them and seeking legal assistance (Karras et al., 2006).
A number of parents and lawyers who were interviewed reported that depression among
parents appearing in the Children’s Court is common, most notably as a result of the
loss of their children and life circumstances. Of particular concern are the parents who
may be overwhelmed by their problems, and then not motivated to seek or follow
through with legal representation, resulting in them not showing up at court on mention
dates and in the worst case, the matter being determined ex parte.
6.5 INTIMIDATION
I think as soon as you walk in the front door, you’re on the back foot. It really is intimidating — from walking in the front door of the court, to walking out of the court, the whole thing.
Interview #20, Parent
It was overwhelmingly clear from the interviews with parents and families that the
court process can be extremely intimidating and confusing for them. Many of the
parents spoke of feeling overwhelmed by the court process, and one parent who
commented on the court process being “very disempowering”, said “and I think that’s
what it’s been designed to do” (Interview #25, Parent).
147
It was particularly concerning that almost all parents interviewed mentioned that at the
time they attended court, they did not fully understand the court process or what was
expected of them. The complexity and speed at which court proceedings took place was
also mentioned as an issue that contributed to parents feeling intimidated by the legal
and court process. The lack of privacy while waiting for proceedings to commence and
during proceedings was also mentioned by parents as a factor that increased this
feeling. One parent described this sense of intimidation in the following way:
The mention list is a really daunting and overwhelming process, you really don’t know what is happening, your name gets called out, and there’s a courtroom full of case managers and a whole lot of people you don’t really know, and it’s an incredibly intimidating process. I think a lot of people automatically assume “mmm I wonder what she’s done” kind of attitude.
Interview #19, Parent
A number of parents who were interviewed also spoke of feeling powerless and
intimidated by having limited or no legal representation, being unable to obtain legal
representation, and in some cases being self-represented in contested matters that went
to trial. Lawyers and magistrates who see these parents provide an insight into the
challenges that they face in attempting to participate in the Children’s Court. One
lawyer commented:
If I was a parent in that situation I’d feel like the game was lost before I could even start. I’ve seen examples of where I think really the parents have a great deal of difficulty getting a fair hearing. It’s pretty necessary to have legal representation.
Interview #2, Lawyer
One lawyer made the point that by virtue of a built-in time delay between parents
appearing in court for their first mention and the time taken to apply for, and obtain
legal representation, parents are at an immediate disadvantage by not being able to get
their views across to the magistrate quickly, particularly in relation to the interim
(temporary) care orders and arrangements of their children until the court process is
148
well underway. This can lead to a process that is immensely stressful and
disempowering for parents. A number of lawyers and magistrates spoke very openly
about the daunting and negative impact that the court process can have on parents. The
following comment captures some of these feelings:
And then of course I think it’s a big, big issue to expect these people who have got, the parents in the Children’s Court, who have got massive issues, that the court process is really going to assist them a lot. Most parents find it very disturbing and distressing to go through.
Interview #2, Lawyer
Research conducted in Western Australia on the experiences of parents and families of
children and young people in care found that many parents in that study similarly spoke
of feeling helpless facing a set of systems that were themselves overwhelming (Harries,
2008). The legal process itself was a major issue of concern to all participants in that
research study who had been to court during the course of engagement with the
statutory authorities. Those parents described the confusion, the delays and the fear as
they grappled with court processes — many of them having no supports or advocates.
Delays in, and lack of information about court hearings were mentioned by a large
number of participants in that study as a cause of despair. These themes were reiterated
by many parents interviewed for this research.
6.6 CONFUSION
If there was a detailed description of how the process normally works, what happens in what order, and also what would be required of you to make it speedier, this is a mention, it can happen for this long, what to expect from the process, rather than you going in blind and all them telling you is “turn off your mobile phone”, “don’t wear a hat”, “only speak when addressed to” and all that, but they don’t tell you what to expect from the court process, or what’s going to happen in what order.
Interview #26, Parent
149
A common theme throughout the interviews with parents was that the court system is
confusing, alienating, and difficult to participate in. Despite the inclusion of specific
provisions in the legislation that stipulate protection and care proceedings are to be
conducted with as little formality and technicality as the circumstances of the case
permit (s.145(1)), there was a general consensus among parents and a number of
lawyers that court processes did not reflect the intent of the legislation. A number of
parents spoke of feeling disadvantaged from the very beginning, as a result of their
confusion and not understanding the court process. One parent commented:
It’s all over in five seconds [and] without interpretation by a lawyer as to what had just happened parents wouldn’t have a hope of understanding the court process.
Interview#26, Parent
For parents with disabilities, these concerns are likely to be exacerbated. One father
who has an intellectual disability put it this way:
It’s always confusing; I’ve always had to ask my mum afterwards what they’re
trying to do
Interview #21, Parent
The following comment by a lawyer highlights many of the themes that emerged from
the interviews relating to the confusion, the delays, the use of complex legal language
or ‘legalese’, the lack of information, and the implications of limited departmental
(DCP) and legal resources for parents experiencing the court system:
The parents rock up on their first court appointment and what happens? It gets adjourned, and everybody speaks in this legal language, and lawyers do deals with lawyers, and it takes two-and-a-half seconds, and you’re told you’re coming back in four weeks’ time. You want to speak but the magistrate goes “well look, this is the process, I don’t have a solution for that, it is the process”, but I would imagine if the question is from the parents’ perspective, then I think it’s a living nightmare.
Interview #5, Lawyer
150
6.7 THE NEED FOR SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY
I really think that there needs to be specific services provided — to provide support and advocacy for parents who have children in the child protection system, and to go through that court process, I mean it’s a horrendously…it’s a really difficult process, it’s very difficult to understand, you’ve got a whole lot of trauma already because your child has been removed. I can really easily see why people don’t turn up, why people give up. It’s very, very tough.
Interview #10, Parent
When asked about the support that parents and families required in order to navigate
their way through the child protection legal and court process, many identified a need
for emotional support during this time. When lawyers and court staff were asked the
same question about supports needed by parents, the majority commented that the Duty
Lawyer service based at the Children’s Court and subsequent legal representation was
the most important form of support. This raises the issue of the large proportion of
parents who do not have ongoing legal representation, and who report feeling
“pressured” to consent to a protection order due to the risk of losing their legal
representation and having to face a trial self-represented.
One family member who was interviewed spoke of the support and advocacy needs of
her son who has an intellectual disability, and who was involved in a protection and
care matter in relation to his children. The family member made the point that for any
parent in this situation the legal process will be daunting: however, for “someone who
doesn’t have a lot of knowledge about how any of these systems work, it’s even more
so” (Interview #20, Family member). Further, the family member raised the concern
that her son continued to be asked questions in departmental (DCP) meetings he simply
did not understand.
That’s the dilemma I’m left in all the time, how do you support parents like this so that they get a fair go, so they understand what’s happening to them, so that you’re able to do anything at all, that’s a big dilemma.
Interview #20, Family member
151
The issue of appointing an Independent Guardian for certain parents appearing in
protection and care proceedings was raised by a number of lawyers as an additional
service that could assist the court. In the United Kingdom, every child protection case is
allocated an Independent Guardian on the first day the application is put to the court.
Guardians in the United Kingdom are social workers, and their primary role is to assist
the court. The Guardians choose the lawyer to represent them and the child, so that each
child has a lawyer and a social worker dedicated to them, who are independent from the
child protection agency.
6.8 SUMMARY
In this chapter, I have presented the stories of what parents and families told me about
their experiences of the child protection legal and court process. Parents and families
described feelings of confusion and pain, of feeling silenced and invisible, of feeling
overwhelmed and stressed, of feeling intimidated and confused, of needing support and
advocacy, and of an overall feeling that there was a lack of appreciation for the genuine
trauma and distress that parents go through when a child is removed from their care.
The stories of these parents and families illustrate the frustrations parents experience
when trying to understand and participate in the legal and court process. A number of
lawyers and magistrates were sensitive and attuned to parents’ experiences and
situations.
In the next chapter, I discuss the data in relation to the participation in the legal system
of parents and families appearing in child protection court proceedings in Western
Australia. More specifically, I identify how specific practices, processes, people and
structures in the Children’s Court can enhance or restrict participation and I discuss
these things in relation to the concepts valued by therapeutic jurisprudence.
In this chapter, I discuss the data in relation to the participation in the legal system of
parents and families appearing in child-protection court proceedings in Western
Australia. This involves an analysis of all data including court observations and
individual views of parents and families, magistrates, lawyers and court staff relating to
procedures and practices of the Children’s Court. I use a micro-analytic therapeutic
jurisprudence perspective to consider the way in which participation can be either
restricted or enhanced. More specifically, I identify how specific practices, processes,
people and structures in the Children’s Court can enhance or restrict participation and I
discuss these elements in relation to the concepts valued by therapeutic jurisprudence
This includes the role of the lawyer and magistrate in terms of how their style, approach
and manner can either encourage or discourage the participation of parents. In the
following chapter, which focuses on the potential for change at a meso level, I also
discuss the role of the lawyer, but in terms of how having legal representation can
enhance parents’ access to justice.
Based on the analysis of the data provided by court observations and interviews with
parents and families, magistrates, lawyers and court staff, this chapter highlights a
number of individual and procedural barriers to participation in the legal system that
result from specific court practices, processes, rules and regulations in the court. The
complex interplay between these barriers is also noted. The ways in which certain court
processes, judicial approaches and different legal structures can facilitate participation
153
are also identified. The focus of this chapter is on the detail of the practices of the
Children’s Court of Western Australia. Features of the legal system that affect the
participation of parents and families at a micro level have been categorised into the
following six themes:
• Communication and time
• Nature of the court process
• The pre-hearing conference process
• Role of the magistrate
• Provision of information
• Nature of negotiations
Findings presented in this chapter suggest there are many ways in which the Children’s
Court can be improved at the micro level, in order to increase the therapeutic potential
of the court. The data indicate that parents who are involved in child-protection court
proceedings need an approach which is more flexible, and they need more assistance
and time than is currently afforded in order to participate most effectively in the legal
system.
For the purposes of this chapter, ‘participation’ in the legal system relates to the various
components of the child protection legal process including mentions, trials and pre-
hearing conferences in the Children’s Court.
7.2 COMMUNICATION AND TIME
The personal experiences of parents and families were discussed in Chapter 6. Parents
described their emotional reactions to the court experience, of feeling silenced and
invisible, of feeling overwhelmed and stressed, and of feeling intimidated and confused
by the process. The way in which individual and personal challenges can restrict
meaningful participation in the legal process was mentioned by almost all interviewees
in different ways. These factors related predominantly to communication difficulties
and problems with time.
154
Communication difficulties
The Western Australian Children and Community Services Act 2004 (referred to as the
Act in this chapter) contains specific guiding principles that relate to the need for
parents to understand what is happening to them and their children during the court
process. The principles state that a child’s parents and any other people who are
significant in the child’s life should be given adequate information in a manner and
language that they can understand about the decision-making processes under the Act
(s.9(k)). The Act further stipulates that the outcome of any decision about the child,
including an explanation of the reasons for the decision, and of any relevant complaint
or review procedures is required (s.9(k)). However, despite these guiding principles, the
data from this research clearly indicate these goals rarely translate into a reality for
parents appearing in the protection and care jurisdiction in Western Australia.
Communication difficulties emanating from the use of complex legal language and
jargon were identified in the data as a significant barrier to the participation of parents
and families in child-protection court proceedings. The formality and complexity of the
language used in the courtroom can be confusing and anxiety provoking for court
participants, particularly for those who are new to the court system. Observations
indicated how communication difficulties can add to parents feeling stressed, confused,
powerless, angry and alienated by the court process. It was also noted that the frequent
references that lawyers made to sections of the Act added to parents’ confusion,
exclusion and ability to follow the proceedings. The frustration and emotions of parents
were observed to have an impact on their capacity to articulate clearly their views on
significant issues relating to their child’s and their own needs. The data indicate that the
language used by legal and court personnel can act as a mechanism of exclusion. One
parent spoke about “drowning without legal representation”, and that without it “you
just wouldn’t understand what was happening at all” (Interview #19 Parent).
The speed and pace at which mentions and court lists are heard in the Children’s Court
can create additional hurdles for parents being able to effectively participate and
155
communicate during court proceedings. In interviews, some lawyers and magistrates
dismissed the need for parents to understand the language and the purpose of the court
process, stating “the mentions are not really designed for anything other than the
lawyers, who are expected to explain it to the respondent fully” (Interview #14,
Magistrate). This expectation is based on the presumption that all parents have legal
representation in the first place, and are fortunate enough to have the process explained
to them by their lawyer. Data suggest that not all parents in this jurisdiction are
afforded that privilege.
It was evident from the court observations that problems relating to communication can
be exacerbated for parents who do not have legal representation. If parents have
problems communicating or understanding what is happening during the court
proceedings, it is intended that their legal representative will assist them by explaining
events, advocating on their behalf, and ensuring that the parents participate as much as
possible in the court process. It was apparent from the court observations and
interviews that parents who did not have appropriate or sufficient legal representation
were at a significant disadvantage, and did not participate as effectively in court
proceedings or have as positive outcomes as did parents with legal representation.
A therapeutic jurisprudence approach to dimensions of communication considers the
impact of non-verbal cues and body language on participants in the courtroom.
Observations indicate that the use of complex legal terminology and jargon are related
to the attitude, style and approach of the individual magistrate. A magistrate made no
apologies for the fact that in his view “parents are unlikely to understand the
proceedings anyway, which is just unfortunate for them” (Interview #14, Magistrate),
and therefore from his perspective there was no point in amending magistrates’
language. The same magistrate remarked: “If we’re using legal terms and jargon,
they’ve got no idea what it is, and we haven’t got time to explain it”. Other magistrates
were observed to be more aware and mindful of how their communication style and
body language could restrict participation, and accordingly made attempts to use plain
156
English, and to speak clearly and slowly during court proceedings. Some magistrates
were observed to make efforts to explain the processes or outcomes in language and
terms that the parents could understand.
The interactions between magistrates and parents were observed to have a direct impact
on the level of participation of the parents. It was clear from the observations that some
magistrates and lawyers had better communication skills than others. This was evident
in the way that one particular magistrate regularly spoke to parents at a pace that was
too fast to follow, often used legal jargon, rarely gave parents an opportunity to speak,
and rarely made any eye contact with them. Other magistrates were observed to be
sensitive to communication issues, and took the time to ask parents if they had any
questions and appeared to listen attentively to them. All of these things can reduce the
anxiety of parents not knowing and understanding what is happening, and generally
feeling overwhelmed by it all.
Magistrates can clearly convey messages to the parent through their demeanour, tone of
voice, body language and whether they actively listen to the parent. All of these
considerations can have an impact on whether parents and families feel empowered to
participate in the court proceedings. As stated by one lawyer, all of these things can
contribute to “whether people think there is a court there that’s really interested in their
case” (Interview #3, Lawyer).
Communication difficulties can be further exacerbated for parents who have a
disability, and for parents who are illiterate. Research has demonstrated that people
with a mental illness who appear in court can be so overwhelmed by the whole court
process that they lack clarity in the delivery of their answers (Karras et al., 2006).
Research has also indicated that the communication problems of people with
disabilities can be compounded by the courts’ excessive reliance on legal terminology
and complicated language (Disability Council of NSW, 2003). These difficulties were
157
captured in the comments by a parent who has an intellectual disability and was
interviewed for this research:
They use too many…they use their own language, they shorten their words and muddle their words, like they’ve got their own language they speak, it’d just be like someone like myself having to put up with some lawyer that can only speak Greek or Spanish, and it’s just like they’re trying to hide what they’re really want to say, they speak in their own language, it’d just be like someone like myself putting up with Italians and Japanese people, Chinese people any other race besides my own. It makes me feel like they’re being a bit rude. I wouldn’t change my language so they wouldn’t be able to understand me so why should they do that to me?
Interview #21, Parent
Parents appearing in protection proceedings who are illiterate or for whom English is a
second language face additional hurdles in participating in the court process. The need
to understand legal documents and technical bureaucratic processes can create even
more barriers in attempting to understand and follow the court proceedings. The
Children’s Court of Western Australia has endeavoured to address these difficulties for
parents by implementing protocols to support the provision of interpreters for parents
for whom English is a second language.
Observations of the Children’s Court demonstrate how speech can also act as a
mechanism for the exercise of influence and power in the court. Across the justice
system and at all stages of contact, language can and does exclude people from
participation. The particular use of language can emphasise the gap between those with
knowledge and power, and those without (Disability Council of NSW, 2003). This
issue of power is inextricably linked with parents’ experience of the child protection
system generally, and specifically in relation to the legal and court process. The
dominance of speech in the legal professional context is reflected in its importance as a
conveyer of power and influence in the wider community — in education, business,
politics, community organisations and families (AIJA, 2009a). The issue of power and
how this relates to court culture is briefly discussed in the context of macro-analytic
158
therapeutic jurisprudence in Chapter 9.
There are a number of ways in which the Children’s Court and its legal and court
personnel can be more attuned to the communication difficulties experienced by many
parents appearing in this jurisdiction. An example of how magistrates and lawyers
could use plain English could be to say: “ok we’re going to come back to this court in a
couple of weeks’ time to just see how things are going then”, rather than say “we’ll
adjourn for mention”. The Chief Justice of Western Australia, the Honourable Wayne
Martin notes that more can be done in this area — and a greater use of plain English,
simplification and standardisation of forms and procedures, and publication of plain
English guides to court processes for litigants, including self-represented litigants,
could greatly benefit the public and court participants (Martin, 2008:12).
Problems with time
As previously described in Chapter 3, parents and families involved in the child
protection legal system are often experiencing multiple and multi-layered problems,
and are already coping with considerable life stresses. Therefore, many of the parents
appearing in the Children’s Court lead chaotic lives and face many challenges in
meeting daily tasks including managing time commitments.
The data indicate that problems with time and time management can act as a barrier to
the participation of parents and families in the legal system. Parents in particular
identified issues of time as a barrier to their effective participation. Many, if not all the
parents interviewed in this research mentioned that they were reliant on public
transport, and did not have access to childcare facilities, family support or resources —
all factors that can make managing time commitments more challenging. For some
parents and families this can lead to turning up to court late, missing court appearances,
not responding to timeframes, and not filling in paperwork on time — all factors that
can exacerbate their legal situation.
159
Court observations indicated that the court starting time of 9.00 a.m. was particularly
difficult for parents and families appearing in this jurisdiction. A lawyer who was
interviewed made the suggestion that the Children’s Court of Western Australia could
be aligned with other courts in the state and commence proceedings at 10.00 a.m. rather
than 9.00 a.m., which could alleviate some of the challenges parents face in attending
the court on time, particularly for those reliant on public transport. As discussed in the
previous chapter, a significant problem is the current limited face-to-face time that
parents have with their lawyer, which is often restricted to the minutes prior to or
directly following the court appearance. A later court starting time would allow a
greater opportunity for parents to meet with their lawyer prior to their court appearance,
and would allow caseworkers and lawyers the opportunity to meet at the court at 9.00
a.m. to discuss matters, which in turn could prevent court proceedings from being so
delayed and protracted.
7.3 NATURE OF THE COURT PROCESS
The whole process is not just anti-therapeutic...but it’s detrimental.
Interview #12, Lawyer
From observation and oral evidence, it became very clear that there are many ways in
which specific court processes can restrict, and in some instances enhance, the
participation of parents and families in the child protection legal system. The speed at
which court proceedings are heard, delays in proceedings, protracted processes, and the
nature of proceedings have all been identified in the data as affecting the capacity of
parents and families to participate effectively in the legal system.
The therapeutic jurisprudence literature, which is informed by the social sciences and
psychology literature, overwhelmingly indicates that court processes can be a highly
stressful, isolating and confusing experience for court participants (Wexler, 1990;
Sadrehashemi, 2008). Much of this literature has described the negative impact that the
Children’s Court and Family Court processes can have on children, parents, extended
family members, professionals, lawyers and court staff. Many of the changes seen in
the law in Australia in recent years, particularly those towards less adversarial and more
conciliatory methods of resolving conflict, have been driven in part by an increasing
awareness and acceptance of these views and perspectives.
Pace of proceedings
The issue of time is repeatedly identified in the data as a source of frustration and
concern for all interviewee groups. Observations and interviews indicate that
timeframes in this jurisdiction simply compound the stress that many respondent
parents are already experiencing. The Act includes specific provisions that relate
directly to the Children’s Court facilitating parties’ (parents or guardians) participation
in protection proceedings. The Act states that the Court must, as far as is practicable,
ensure that each party understands the nature, purpose and legal implications of the
proceedings, and of any order or decision of the Court (s.153(1)). Yet, despite these
provisions, the data clearly indicate that there are many ways in which court processes
restrict rather than facilitate the participation of parents and families.
The insufficient allocation of time and the speed at which court proceedings take place,
specifically the mention list, were identified as issues of concern in relation to the
exclusion of parents and families in the court process. Observations of court
proceedings indicated that the speed at which the mention list was heard would often be
so rushed that parents walked out of the courtroom having no idea about what just
happened. The discussion between magistrate and lawyers about the status of the case
and planning for the next court date was often observed to take no more than one
minute. Parents in interviews did not seem to differentiate their experiences of the
various court processes, but rather they spoke of their overall experiences and of feeling
confused, pushed and overwhelmed by the speed at which their matters were often
heard.
161
Many of the lawyers who were interviewed were critical of the limited amount of time
that is allocated to hear each matter, as well as the need for some magistrates to move
from the protection and care court once the protection list is complete across to the
criminal court. A number of lawyers suggested this is largely a resource issue.
However, regardless of resources, it is argued that there are ways in which the court, the
magistrates and lawyers can be more attuned to the impact of the speed at which
proceedings are conducted, the importance of use of plain English and the significance
of taking the time to explain the process and outcomes to parents.
The data and the literature suggest that with more resources and therefore more time,
magistrates could be in a better position to play a more monitoring and therapeutic role,
which would enable better judicial involvement. Additional time could also allow the
magistrate to take on a greater case-management role, in order to look at what is
happening in the case, to consider who is doing what, why they are doing it, or why
they are not doing it. A case management approach would reflect practices seen in
problem solving and specialist courts in Western Australia, and in the Family Court of
Western Australia. One lawyer made the following comment:
One of the things they’re doing in the Family Court is they’re talking to the parent. The magistrate will actually say to the parent — “so what do you say is going on?” The time is set aside. When you’re trying to squeeze a mention list into between 9 o’clock and 10 o’clock there’s just no time for that stuff. And the sense you get when you’re trying to talk about things is that the Court wants to close you down because we’ve got to get onto the next thing.
Interview #11, Lawyer
From a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, court proceedings that are rushed can
further alienate, silence and intimidate parents and families, which can therefore act as
a barrier to their effective participation in the legal system. There are many tensions
around the issue of time in the Children’s Court, both in terms of the speed at which
matters are heard, and also the impact that delays and protracted processes have on
162
parents and families. These tensions are captured in the following comment by a lawyer
working in the jurisdiction:
Generally there’s a lot of matters on the [protection] list, I don’t know — maybe 20 maybe more. So there’s lots of people, lots of lawyers, lots of social workers, lots of parents milling around. All the matters get called one by one and each one probably averages two minutes, probably less. So that in itself is probably not therapeutic. Generally the Department [DCP] lawyer would say “we want to adjourn this for four weeks” and the magistrate would say “okay adjourned”. And that’s it. The parents don’t even have a chance to say anything at all. They probably don’t feel heard and whatever issues they have aren’t brought up. Interview #5, Lawyer
Delays and protracted processes
The issue of delays and protracted processes was also noted in the data as restricting the
participation of parents and families. While the Act states that decisions about a child
should be made promptly having regard to the age, characteristics, circumstances and
needs of the child (s.9(h)), this research found most participants were frustrated with
the built-in time delays and the protracted nature of protection and care court
proceedings. The frequency with which matters were adjourned and the general lack of
progress at each court date were mentioned as a major source of frustration in the
majority of interviews conducted.
In terms of procedure in the Children’s Court of Western Australia, the Act stipulates
that the court must list the protection application within three working days of a care
application being made (s.36(3)). When an application for a protection order is made,
the matter is listed for mention. At this first mention, all parties usually seek an
adjournment and this is often granted to enable the legal representatives to take
instructions from their clients (the parents) and to file evidence. The data indicate there
is much criticism about how these built-in time delays at the commencement of
proceedings can act as a barrier to parents being informed about the case that is being
made against them in the first instance.
163
The data indicate that it is common for delays for up to five days from the time a child
is placed in care, to the time the application is heard for the first time in the court. One
magistrate described this built-in time delay as being particularly problematic. This
magistrate commented that caseworkers are often not in a position to have extensive
dialogue with parents and families in the initial days following the removal of their
child, as their priority is usually in finding a safe environment for the child or in putting
their application together for the court (Interview #16, Magistrate). Parents described
this stage as extremely difficult, given that some of them were unaware at that time
where their child or children had been placed. These delays can also lead to parents
experiencing significant problems establishing initial contact with their children
immediately following the removal. One magistrate described this common situation in
the following way:
And then people come to court a number of days later and the first thing that’s said to them is “well you’ll need to get some legal advice about this, they’ve given you a two-week adjournment to do that” and of course the question is “well that’s all well and good but where are my children?
Interview #16, Magistrate
A key issue of concern identified in the data was that of drawn-out proceedings.
Despite the fact that the legislation states that protection proceedings are to be
concluded as ‘expeditiously as possible’ in order to minimise the effect of the
proceedings on the child and the child’s family (s.145(3)), in Western Australia, the
average number of court appearances required in protection and care matters is seven
(Department of the Attorney General, 2008). The protracted nature of protection
proceedings is particularly problematic in situations where a new baby is removed from
its parents’ care, which can have serious implications on the capacity for bonding
between baby and mother. One mother described her experience of these delays in the
following way:
164
My experience of the court process was horrible, it took 18 months to get to the pre-hearing conference, it took forever, 18 months is a long time, especially with a child who was two-and-a-half when she was taken, it’s a really long time.
Interview #25, Parent
Parents and lawyers commented that these built-in time delays can also affect a parent’s
capacity to present their views to the court until a few weeks into the proceedings.
Particularly in cases where a parent opposes or contests the protection application, they
are required to file an affidavit in support of their application, which can result in
further delays in parents being able to have a say in the court proceedings. For parents
who have a disability, are illiterate, or for whom English is a second language, the
requirement to file an affidavit can act as an additional barrier to their prompt
participation in the early stages of the court proceedings. In this regard, it is particularly
concerning, that research by McConnell et al. (2002) demonstrated that less than half
the parents with a disability who appeared in the New South Wales Children’s Court in
relation to protection and care matters actually filed an affidavit.
The data suggest there are a number of procedural and practical problems that can
prolong protection proceedings, including multiple adjournments of mentions, the
schedules of the parents’ solicitors and DCP lawyers, and the timing of the filing of
documents. Observations indicated that cases could be adjourned for up to three or four
weeks when documents were not filed on time. Parents and court officials commented
that the impact of such delays and the uncertainty while proceedings are ‘on foot’ can
be painful for families and can lead to immense frustration and difficulties. These
problems are congruent with results of the Wood Inquiry (2008) which found undue
delays were caused by parties not filing evidence on time, parents not attending court,
parents awaiting legal representation, and the granting of adjournments by the court.
However, an important point made in that inquiry was that while expedition is in the
best interests of children and young people, it should not be at the expense of a fair and
considered hearing.
165
Observations of court proceedings, particularly mentions, indicated there were
situations when parents had taken time off work, travelled significant distances, and
even cancelled contact visits with their child in order to attend the court for their
mention, only to find their matter adjourned. In the light of the impact that these delays
have on parents and their family, and also due to the fact that families rarely see
anything ‘substantive’ happen at the mentions, the requirement that parents attend the
mention was challenged by a number of lawyers who were interviewed. A number of
lawyers and parents commented that many parents may be better off having their
lawyer act on instructions, rather than attend themselves, to reduce the negative impact
of these delays. One lawyer made the important following point:
Procedural adjournment, I mean my client doesn’t need to go through that. And revisiting the Court is revisiting the trauma that’s brought them to Court.
Interview #7, Lawyer
The flipside of this suggestion is that parents could easily find themselves in a difficult
situation: on the one hand, repeatedly attending the court for mentions that are
adjourned is frustrating for parents; on the other hand, their non-attendance at mentions
could also send the wrong message to the court, or be interpreted by the DCP as a lack
of commitment to the process, or worse, to their children.
Above all, what this highlights is the significance of communication between lawyers
and parents, a responsibility that rests with both parties. Open communication is
particularly important when it is known to lawyers that the scheduled court date is
likely to be adjourned, or if there are likely to be any outcomes of significance for the
parents. As parents have mentioned in interviews, this could reduce their frustration and
disillusionment with the process.
166
The adversarial nature of protection proceedings
“So why waste my time negotiating, we’ve got the power and we’re bringing the application, we’ve got the evidence. If your client doesn’t agree, we’ll go to trial”— that whole litigious model.
Interview #12, Lawyer
Participants overwhelmingly stated that the adversarial nature of protection proceedings
precluded the meaningful participation of parents and families in the legal process. The
participation of parents in the legal system is inextricably linked with the issue of
power, which in turn plays out in the adversarial nature of protection proceedings in the
courtroom. Parents’ stories of their experiences of the court process clearly demonstrate
that an imbalance of power exists between parents and representatives of the DCP (both
legal and caseworkers). One parent said:
One of the main challenges or difficulties parents face in participating in the legal process…is being heard, absolutely, it’s a challenge to get a voice in the courts, and to be recognised that you know…that I’ve got rights, my child has rights.
Interview #10, Parent
Observations of court proceedings demonstrated that this adversarial nature is
commonly reflected in the combative tone and approaches adopted by the various
parties, and in the manner adopted by some DCP caseworkers and team-leaders in the
pre-hearing conference. It was suggested by one magistrate that parents view the DCP
as a ‘prosecutorial department’ and as being a ‘prosecutor in a police mode’, rather than
necessarily as a department that is there to help them (Interview #16, Magistrate).
The adversarial nature of protection proceedings is also reflected in the way in which
evidence and information is documented. Formality governs how and when evidence is
filed — for example, evidence must be submitted in affidavit form, a requirement that
can be particularly difficult for parents appearing in this jurisdiction. The adversarial
nature of protection proceedings can also be reflected in the language adopted by the
167
different parties. This was evident in how parents referred to the “opposition” and of
“feeling ambushed”. One lawyer used metaphors of war to describe cases that were
won or lost: he commented, “so we’re not used to losing, and when I say losing, it’s not
a win or lose thing” (Interview #2, Lawyer).
Participants explained that when a parent contests a protection application and the
matter goes to a trial, adversarialism is at its peak. Adversarial components of the trial
process can include the calling of witnesses, the presentation of evidence, and the
examination and cross-examination process. The adversarial nature of the trial process
and the combative approaches adopted by the respective parties can lead to parents and
families feeling intimidated by the court process, an experience which can disable court
participants, particularly those who are vulnerable. The adversarial trial process can
also potentially damage the relationship between parents and caseworkers, a
relationship that is extremely important in the event that a protection order is made and
a child is placed in out-of-home care. An ongoing, open relationship between the
parents and caseworkers is of great significance and relevance to the child.
In the Family Court of Australia and its Western Australian equivalent, less adversarial
trials have become a particularly important part of the approach to resolving conflict
concerning child issues. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Division 12A of Part VII) and
the Western Australian legislation (Family Court Act 1997 (WA)) have been amended
to reflect a less adversarial approach to trials in child related proceedings. The key
features of less adversarial trials include the following, found in the Family Court
Bulletin (p.5):
• No affidavits are filed before the trial — parents only complete a questionnaire
• The judge, rather than the parties or their lawyers, decides how the trial is
conducted
• The judge controls the case and keeps everyone focused on the major
disagreements about the children’s best interests
168
• Parents and carers can speak directly to the judge, not simply through their
lawyer/s
• The judge identifies the issues to be decided and the evidence to be heard
• The judge is assisted by evidence from a family consultant who has specialist
knowledge and expertise in working with children and families experiencing
relationship difficulties after separation.
Drawing on such models and the concepts valued by therapeutic jurisprudence, there
are a number of ways in which the Children’s Court can support the autonomy, self-
determination and participation of parents in the trial process. Self-determination is
described in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature as being vital for motivation and
successful action. The exercise of free will to make choices as to how one thinks,
speaks and acts allows one to choose action that is personally meaningful for them
(Winick, 1992, 1997). The court can support parents by being more flexible in meeting
the needs of the individual parent and his or her situation, by being more inclusive in so
far as promoting the parents’ involvement in the process, by processes being less
formal and more aligned with how pre-hearing conferences are run, and by explaining
the process and the outcome directly to parents in a manner and language that they can
understand.
7.4 THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE PROCESS
To what extent should we create further incremental change? I would suggest that any required hearing of all parties and parents and support persons should only be in a pre-hearing conference format, always have a robust constructive issue delving inquiry at every mention. It’s about not having to drag the parents through that process 5-6-7-8 times before they get to a pre-hearing conference. Why, when it is such a negative emotionally inducing process?
Interview #7, Lawyer
Under the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA) the Children’s Court may
order a pre-hearing conference to give parties to the proceedings an opportunity to
169
discuss, and reach agreement on any matter relevant to the application (s.136(2)). The
pre-hearing conference process is based on the alternative dispute-resolution model of
conferencing matters in an informal setting.
The pre-hearing conference is a key component of the decision-making process as
reflected in the legislation and Children’s Court Practice Directions. The Act states that
a child’s parents and any other people who are significant in the child’s life should be
given an opportunity and assistance to participate in decision-making processes that are
likely to have a significant impact on the child’s life (s.9(j)).
If a protection application is contested by the parent or caregiver, then the matter is
resolved at a pre-hearing conference or a trial. The purpose of the pre-hearing
conference is to try to reach agreement on the matter without the need for a trial. If an
agreement is reached, final orders can be made and the application can be finalised. If
one or more of the respondent parents fail to attend the pre-hearing conference at which
the consent was reached, or if the court determines that that the application should be
heard and determined ex parte, this can occur. If the pre-hearing conference does not
result in consent for final orders, the magistrate can adjourn the case to another pre-
hearing conference. Alternatively, if no agreement is reached between the parties, the
pre-hearing conference time can be used to prepare for trial.
Everything discussed in a pre-hearing conference is confidential and cannot be used as
evidence in any later court hearing about the case. The magistrate convening the pre-
hearing conference can also give a non-binding opinion of the probable outcome of the
hearing/trial based on the limited evidence (Children’s Court of Western Australia,
2010a).
Pre-hearing conferences are conducted onsite at the Perth Children’s Court, and some
conferences are conducted by the court sitting at other locations – such as in regional
courts. In the Perth Children’s Court, pre-hearing conferences are held in a small
170
training room located away from the courtrooms. The pre-hearing conferences can be
convened by a judge, magistrate or an external convenor appointed by the court.
Attendees may include parents or guardians of the child/children, their lawyers, DCP
caseworkers and team leaders, DCP lawyers, legal representatives of the children and
the magistrate or convenor.
A number of issues emerged in the data in relation to the disparity in purpose of the
pre-hearing conferences, the way in which the conferences are conducted, the time that
is allocated to the conferences and cultural considerations of how the conferences
should be run. Each of these issues will briefly be discussed in relation to how it affects
the participation of parents and families.
Disparity in purpose of pre-hearing conference
Observations of the pre-hearing conferences and interviews indicate there is significant
disparity in the perspectives of magistrates as to the purpose and function of the pre-
hearing conferences, and inconsistencies in how they are conducted. Some of the
magistrates described the pre-hearing conference as simply a management tool, a
procedural step, and an opportunity to reach agreement and failing that, to narrow the
issues down so that the trial is focused on what is in contention. These magistrates were
observed to engage predominantly with the DCP lawyer in terms of dialogue, body
language and eye contact, and not with the parents or their lawyers.
Other magistrates appeared to hold a different view, and spoke of the pre-hearing
conferences as being a genuine opportunity to conduct mediation between the parties.
These magistrates were generally observed to give parents and their lawyers the
opportunity to speak, to update the parties and contribute their views on how they see
the matter going forward. One such magistrate described his approach in the following
way:
171
I take a fairly interventionist role in pre-hearing conferences. I don’t see them merely as an opportunity to set directions in preparation for trial. I like to get all the issues out on the table with a view to settlement of the matter. Whether that be by the Department [DCP] withdrawing their application or the parents agreeing to the order that’s asked for, or a reduced order like a protection order supervision or move from an 18-year order to a 2-year order. So I think the conferences are quite a valuable opportunity, there’s no doubt. It depends, I suppose, on the magistrate and the view that that particular magistrate has of them.
Interview #16, Magistrate
While the majority of pre-hearing conferences are convened by magistrates, there is
provision within the legislation for these conferences to be convened by an external
facilitator, although it has been reported anecdotally that this has only occurred on three
or four occasions to date. It is suggested that in order to address this disparity in how
the pre-hearing conferences are run, and perhaps more importantly the disparity in their
usefulness and potential value, these conferences could all be exclusively convened by
external mediators who have specialist training in child protection mediation. Practices
such as these are already in place in Children’s courts throughout Australia. As noted in
the following comment by a lawyer, the use of external mediators would also free up
magistrates’ time, to allow more time to be spent on the mention list:
Pre-hearings in Melbourne weren’t chaired by a magistrate, so that meant that there wasn’t the pressure on magistrates to finish up the mention list to go and do pre-hearings. The pre-hearings were in the hands of people who had been trained to facilitate them.
Interview #3, Lawyer
Many comparisons were made in interviews between the pre-hearing conferences in the
Children’s Court and the mediation that is conducted in the Family Court of Western
Australia. One lawyer referred to the pre-hearing conferences conducted in the
Children’s Court as a “lost opportunity” for effective mediation. Mediation as seen in
the Family Court was described by another lawyer as “effective text book mediation”,
which enabled meaningful resolutions for people that were valid for them, and ones that
172
they themselves would stand by because they felt that they owned the process and the
decisions made. The same lawyer commented:
I’ve never seen that process happen in the Children’s Court. You’d have to say, I mean procedurally, from a fairness point of view, the Children’s Court is an abomination really.
Interview #2, Lawyer
Magistrates’ style and approach in the pre-hearing conference
The data clearly indicate that the attitude, style and approach of the magistrate
convening the pre-hearing conference can have a significant impact on the participation
of parents and families, on their experience of the pre-hearing conference process, and
can also affect the outcomes of the conference.
Some magistrates were observed to have a style that had a purely litigious focus. Other
magistrates were criticised for having a ‘perfunctory attitude’ to the pre-hearing
conference (Interview #11, Lawyer) and for more or less just checking what everybody
wanted — if the parties were not in agreement then they would just be ‘off to a trial’.
Another lawyer was critical of the fact that parents were so intimidated by the pre-
hearing conference that they just “shut-up”, and that the conferences were
unproductive, “not counter-productive, but they just don’t add anything or any value to
it” (Interview #2, Lawyer).
Observations also indicated that other magistrates clearly had a different approach to
those described above. Some magistrates were observed to have communication skills
and a style that empowered, included and validated parents and their role in the process.
These magistrates were observed to say things like: “well where are we heading with
this and how can we help today”? Or others would say: “what do the parties want to
talk about today?” “What are the issues to discuss”? “How can we move it forward?”
“What are the concerns?” “Is there anything we can do to try and work with the issues,
or work out the issues in between?” There was a general consensus among interviewees
173
that the pre-hearing conferences that ‘work better’ are the ones where the magistrate or
convenor attempts to find a path to resolution, a way forward, or perhaps a compromise
position. The following is an example of how this can play out:
In the pre-hearing conference, when the mother wanted to talk about how she was feeling the magistrate gave her an opportunity to do that, where some magistrates would say “okay, well, we don’t have time for that but let’s just go on to the Department’s position.” Position-focused rather than interest-focused.
Interview #12, Lawyer
Observations suggest that the role and approach of the magistrate or convenor of the
pre-hearing conference is not prescriptive. The convenors appear to have relative
autonomy and flexibility in their approach to how they conduct the pre-hearing
conference, and in what they see as the goal of the conference. As to the conduct of the
pre-hearing conference, The Children’s Court of Western Australia Practice Direction
No 6 of 2006 (which are the procedural guidelines for the Children’s Court) refers
specifically to the procedure if the parties reach consent on final orders at a conference
(paragraph 17.1), and the procedure for where a conference does not result in consent
for final orders (paragraph 17.2), but there is no reference to the manner in which the
conference should be run.
The Practice Direction No 3 of 2009 includes the guiding principle that these
conferences are intended to facilitate the early resolution of protection applications
through a less adversarial dispute-resolution conference process based on the Signs-of-
Safety child protection framework. While the practice direction states that the aim of
the conference is collaboration and future protection for the child (paragraph 2.5), there
is no reference made to the way or manner in which these conferences should be run. In
order to adopt a potentially more therapeutic process, practice directions could include
or reflect mediation principles and processes that value the voice, self-determination
and active participation of parents, which could instil more satisfaction in the process
and could potentially achieve greater outcomes for all concerned.
174
The data suggest there is a role for all magistrates and lawyers working in the
jurisdiction to participate in child-protection mediation training in order to get a better
sense as to the role and value that mediation can play in these conferences, particularly
in relation to the potential to create a therapeutic process with more meaningful
outcomes for all participants. Child-protection mediation certification programs with
extensive training material and modules already exist, and it would seem that these
modules could be easily adapted to be relevant in the Western Australian context.
Allocation of time to the pre-hearing conference
Pre-hearing conferences in the Children’s Court of Western Australia are scheduled on
a daily basis and are allocated a 30-minute block of time, although sometimes these
conferences run over the 30-minute timeframe. Some pre-hearing conferences were
observed to be double-listed and set only 15 minutes apart, leading to most of the
discussion between the lawyers being conducted outside the conference room, which
was often followed by magistrates commencing the conference by saying “so do we
have a basis for agreement yet?”
An insufficient allocation of time for the pre-hearing conference is identified as a
barrier to the effective participation of parents and families in the legal process. The
allocation of time was observed to be insufficient as it restricted and inhibited the
opportunity for any significant discussion or mediation, which could affect the capacity
to reach meaningful outcomes. It could also mean that parents were rarely given a
chance to speak and be heard, and it could also restrict the capacity to discuss at length
any issues of concern.
The bulk of the child-protection mediation literature states that the time that is allocated
to a mediation session is extremely important, particularly in terms of the message the
court is sending to parties about the significance and centrality of the process. An
insufficient allocation of time runs the risk of suggesting to parents and their lawyers
that the conference is merely a procedural step or management tool, rather than a
175
genuine opportunity to discuss and problem-solve the issues in dispute. Therefore, the
way in which the conference is structured can build in an expectation of how the
conference should work, and what is expected from it. Many research participants who
were interviewed were also critical of the fact that pre-hearing conferences were often
too rushed.
In the State of Florida in the United States, child-protection mediation sessions are
allocated a standard three-hour block of time, appropriately reflecting the complex
nature of these matters. Many lawyers who were interviewed commented on the length
of time that was allocated to mediation and conciliation sessions in the Family Court of
Western Australia, and some of them noted that these sessions could often take a half-
day or a full day before a matter was decided. This timeframe is clearly not afforded in
the Children’s Court of Western Australia. Many of these concerns have been captured
in the following comment by a lawyer who was interviewed for this research:
I think any mediator who watched a pre-hearing conference in the Children’s Court would be horrified by it. I have been in mediations, pretty skilful mediations in the Family Court context and that’s not what goes on in the Children’s Court. Not even a shadow of it. There’s no real process to it. Sometimes the caseworker will say something, usually not. Sometimes the parents will say something, but usually not. And the lawyers would kind of say well you know, we think it’s up to this point. And then a decision is made.
Interview #2, Lawyer
Parents’ perspectives of the pre-hearing conference
It was overwhelmingly clear from the data that many parents saw the pre-hearing
conference as the only potentially therapeutic or helpful component of the entire
legal process. Many parents described the informal nature of the conference as being
beneficial. Parents generally spoke of the conference as being the first opportunity
they had to have a voice in the court process, and a number of them said this was the
first time they felt there was some level of progress being made, and the first time
processes, issues and expectations were explained to them in ways that they could
176
understand. When magistrates took the time to explain things to parents, they felt
more included and empowered to participate in the process. Importantly, every
parent who was interviewed commented that they would have preferred to have had
the opportunity to ‘sit around a table together’ and discuss their case and the issue
much earlier:
With that other one, when you’re all around the [pre-hearing conference] table, it makes you feel better even if you don’t achieve anything, that you can actually say something in your defence, and you can actually hear what the accusation is, you’re allowed to talk, and everyone’s sort of equal instead of there being this big special person and you’re just a nobody.
Interview #26, Parent
Observations indicate that the pre-hearing conference forum is one of only a few
opportunities parents have to genuinely exercise self-determination. King (2009a)
suggests that it is this capacity for choice, to speak or to ask questions, that promotes a
person’s motivation, confidence and satisfaction. From a therapeutic jurisprudence
perspective, giving court participants choice, whether it be to enter a particular
program, to use goal setting, or be involved in problem-solving, are means of
promoting participant self-determination, motivation and commitment to change.
Cultural considerations in the pre-hearing conference
Participants suggested that there are a number of cultural considerations that should be
taken into account in how the pre-hearing conferences are convened, and in how parties
conduct themselves in the conference. A number of lawyers commented that cultural
differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents and families can affect
their experience of the pre-hearing conference forum. It was suggested that the informal
nature and components of the conference such as the way in which conferences are
conducted in “something other than a courtroom”, and that “break down the hierarchy”
are of no benefit to Indigenous clients (Interview #7, Lawyer). Participants commented
that the physical setting, the location where the pre-hearing conferences are run, can in
fact create additional cultural barriers and can put some Indigenous clients at greater
177
unease. “Generally, some of these clients find it easier to be in a formal setting where
the roles are clearly defined”. (Interview #7, Lawyer). Arguably the informality and
location of the conference away from the courtroom setting does not necessarily benefit
all cultural groups. It was also noted that for some, body language including direct eye
contact and direct comments across the table, can create more pressure on Indigenous
clients.
When pre-hearing conferences are informal and inclusive in nature, when they are held
at a ‘round table’ where participants are treated equally and with respect, when
sufficient time and resources are allocated to them, and when convenors and lawyers
demonstrate a style and approach that is inclusive of parents, the values of therapeutic
jurisprudence and goals of self-determination, autonomy and active participation can be
enhanced.
Participants suggested that procedurally there are many changes that could potentially
make for a more therapeutic process for all participants in the court system. These
procedural considerations include the rushed pace of proceedings in the mention list,
the delays and protracted processes resulting from the high number of adjournments
made, the high number of court appearances required of parents, the time allocated to
the pre-hearing conference, the variation in the purpose of the conference according to
the individual magistrate, as well as important cultural considerations of how the
conferences should be run — particularly in relation to body language, the behaviour of
the convenor and lawyers — and how informal processes are experienced by
Indigenous and CALD parents and families.
7.5 ROLE OF THE MAGISTRATE
As previously noted, the style and approach of the magistrate can have a significant
impact on a parents’ experience of the pre-hearing conference process. It is also clear
that the interpersonal and communication skills of the magistrate can have either a
178
positive or a negative impact on the parents’ capacity to participate in the mention and
trial process.
The therapeutic jurisprudence literature refers to how the roles and behaviours of legal
actors can be therapeutic or anti-therapeutic, and suggests that much of what legal
actors do has an impact on the psychological wellbeing or emotional life of people
affected by the law (Winick & Wexler, 2003). Some magistrates were observed to be
more aware of the potential impact of their role. One magistrate commented:
What I find is usually, if you take time with people, and I think that’s the essence — if you actually take some time with people, explain things, allow them to have their say, you can be quite active in assisting matters being settled or at least just helping people in their own rehabilitation. It’s really important — sometimes it’s just them having their say, them being heard.
Interview #16, Magistrate
The attitude and behaviour of a judicial officer can be extremely important to how
parents and families perceive their experience of the court. Whether concern or
compassion is conveyed to the parents and whether their crisis is acknowledged, are
important factors in facilitating parents’ participation in the legal and court process.
Parents attending the Children’s Court for their initial court appearance following the
removal of their child are usually traumatised, in crisis mode, and may be quite
reactionary. One particular magistrate was observed to use his role to diffuse a lot of
that tension at the outset, so that everyone could refocus on the children and their best
interests.
Magistrates who appeared to be more sensitive to therapeutic processes were observed
to give compliments and encouraged parents who were doing well in meeting their
respective requirements or contact arrangements. Not all magistrates were observed to
demonstrate concern and compassion for the parents’ position. The therapeutic
jurisprudence literature highlights that an interest in others, empathy and willingness to
engage with and involve participants in problem-solving processes are at their most
179
powerful in promoting participant motivation and compliance when judicial officers
appear to be genuine (King, 2009a).
A number of interpersonal dynamics, personality factors and cultural differences may
also have the potential to impact on court participants’ experience of the court process.
For example, salutations, developing rapport, the manner and politeness of the
magistrate, whether explanations are provided to parents, and whether the parents are
legally represented, all appear to have an impact upon the perceived inclusiveness of
the court process (AIJA, 2009a).
The key features of approaches adopted by traditional judicial officers compared to
approaches adopted by problem-solving court judicial officers have been summarised
in the following table by Popovic (2003). She discussed these problem-solving
approaches in the context of complementing conventional law and changing the culture
of the judiciary. The approaches adopted by problem-solving judicial officers clearly
reflect approaches that are more therapeutic and are relevant to magistrates presiding in
the protection and care jurisdiction.
Figure 3. Comparison of approaches adopted by traditional judicial officers and problem-
solving court judicial officers
Traditional Judicial Officers Problem-Solving Court Judicial Officers
Dispassionate Interested (in litigants’ welfare) Impersonal Personal Decisions made in legal language Decisions made in language
understood by parties Limited communication Open communication Impervious to nuance Attention to nuance and special
needs of litigants Omnipotent Empowering others Punitive Positive/affirming
Source: Popovic (2003)
180
In addition to the impact that the role of the magistrate can have on parents’
participation, the role and behaviour of lawyers can also have a powerful influence on
parents’ participation in the decision-making process, compliance with the court
process, engagement with the DCP and overall experience of the child protection legal
and court process. Literature in the area of procedural justice, such as the work of Tyler
(2006) has found that where courts (and other legal authorities) allow people to present
their story, listen to them, treat them with respect and demonstrate that they care about
litigants, litigants are more likely to respect the court process and obey court orders.
Lawyers using a motivational approach rather than confrontational approach, allow
parents to make decisions and take responsibility (i.e., autonomous decision-making).
While lawyers are not responsible for delivering treatment to their clients, it has been
suggested that they can harness psychological principles regarding positive behavioural
change (Birgden, 2006:6).
Rotating basis of magistrates
There are currently six magistrates working in the Children’s Court of Western
Australia who are based in Perth, although in regional areas, some magistrates working
in regional Magistrate’s Courts are already dealing with child protection and family law
issues. The magistrates who are based in Perth work on a circuit system that sees them
rotate on a weekly basis between the protection and care court, the criminal court,
metropolitan and regional courts, and trials. Every parent who was interviewed
commented on the fact that each time they attended the court, they had a different
magistrate presiding over their matter.
This lack of consistency of magistrate was noted to be a barrier to the effective
participation of parents and families. The rotation system can lead to great variation in
parents’ experience of the court process and in pre-hearing conference outcomes. Many
parents expressed great frustration with this system, which can be particularly difficult
for them when it is obvious the magistrate of the day is unfamiliar with their case. This
lack of consistency was seen by some parents as a disadvantage, with one parent
181
questioning how a new magistrate could make such significant decisions if they did not
have prior knowledge and familiarity with a case. Research has similarly found that
outcomes for court participants in drug courts – courts that seek to promote therapeutic
outcomes – are better where there is consistency in relation to the judge that hears the
case (Dive, 2011). The issues outlined by Dive are consistent with the findings from
this research in relation to the Children’s Court.
On the one hand, the circuit system and rotating basis allows magistrates an opportunity
to gain a broad experience of both child protection and juvenile justice issues, and a
better understanding of the complex way in which welfare concerns can often underlie
youth criminal activity. On the other hand, court participants would likely benefit from
magistrates having a specialisation in one area or the other.
It was noted that the clear majority of the magistrates working in the Children’s Court
of Western Australia who are based in Perth have a background in criminal law. This is
relevant and beneficial to approximately 80% of matters heard in the Children’s Court
that are of a criminal nature. It is argued that despite only 20% of matters being
protection and care related, parents and families would benefit from having a presiding
magistrate who has a background in family law rather than criminal law. It has
previously been noted that there are already criminal procedure overtones evident in the
culture and practices of the Children’s Court of Western Australia. It was suggested by
a number of lawyers that magistrates presiding over protection and care matters could
benefit from spending some rotation time in the Family Court to allow for an
opportunity to broaden their perspective and knowledge of family relationship issues
and dynamics.
7.6 PROVISION OF INFORMATION
A key area of concern from the perspective of parents and families interviewed for this
research relates to the confusion and lack of understanding about the Children’s Court
182
and its processes. While the Act stipulates that a child’s parents and any other people
who are significant in the child’s life should be given adequate information in a manner
and language that they can understand about the decision-making processes under the
Act (s.9(k)), people said that this does not always occur. Insufficient information about
the court process and a lack of communication and information-flow between parents
and caseworkers, can add to the stress and confusion so often described by parents, and
can also act as a barrier to their participation in the process. One lawyer described this
situation in the following way:
The child’s parents and any other people should be given adequate information in the manner and language that they can understand, about the decision-making processes, the outcome and any relevant review and complaint procedures. That never happens. The Department isn’t held accountable despite the fact there’s a guiding principle under the Act about information flow.
Interview #12, Lawyer
Information for parents in the early stages of the court process can have a direct impact
on their capacity to participate in the proceedings. Information flow is extremely
important so that parents clearly understand the reason for the removal, what the court
process is about in terms of what is happening to them and their children, and what
their role will be in the legal and court process. A meeting in the initial stages of the
court proceedings can also allow the caseworkers to guide the parents to appropriate
information and resources, such as the Family Inclusion Network (FinWA) Information
Kit for parents, and can allow the parents an opportunity to ask questions and to feel
that their initial concerns have been heard.
Participants suggested that information for parents that includes an explanation of court
processes should be made available in plain English, in languages other than English,
online, on audio tape, on video or DVD, captioned for people with hearing disability,
and in poster form. The Children’s Court of Western Australia has recently begun to
address the need for more informal supports for parents and families appearing in
protection proceedings. The provision of information on court websites has emerged in
183
recent years as a major strategy for providing information and assistance to court
participants, particularly for self-represented litigants.
In 2009, the Children’s Court of Western Australia launched a new website that
provides a link to a ‘Child Protection Proceedings Brochure’ for parents and guardians.
This brochure contains a brief section on trials (referred to as ‘hearings’ in the
brochure) and outlines what a trial is, how to ‘call a witness’, introduce relevant
documents, and explains how the court decides whether or not to make a protection
order, and who will likely be present at the trial. The brochure defines terms such as
examination, cross-examination, re-examination and closing address, suggests how to
avoid asking leading questions, and explains the etiquette of the court. The website
includes a link to the court practice directions, and a link to the Act.
Previous research and this research suggest that it would be beneficial for the court
website to include other types of information such as a virtual tour of the court, an
online video presentation or power point presentations of what parents and families can
expect from the child protection legal and court process. One lawyer suggested that the
court could produce an information video to be played in the waiting room areas, on
what parents can expect to occur in the courtroom and a demonstration on how to
address the magistrates, all in an effort to help parents feel more prepared for their court
experience.
While such web-based information represents significant change in terms of assisting
parents involved in protection and care proceedings, there are additional resources that
parents could be alerted to. The Family Court of Western Australia has developed a
‘Self-represented Litigants’ Handbook’ which is free and available online, and includes
over 15 pages to assist self-represented litigants prepare for trial. Much of this
information is relevant to parents preparing for trial in the Children’s Court. The
Family Court of Western Australia has addressed the issue of court participants either
not having access, or having limited access to computers, internet, printers and
photocopy machines by installing six dedicated personal computers in the court foyer
184
for litigants’ use, which further supports and empowers them to be actively involved
and participatory in the legal process.
7.7 NATURE OF NEGOTIATIONS
What takes place in the courtroom is just the tip of the iceberg. The negotiation process is mostly informal, occurring between the respective lawyers outside the courtroom. The pre-hearing conferences are formal venues for negotiation. In practice, these are often a final attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution when informal negotiations between the parties have failed.
(McConnell et al., 2002:60)
This research indicates the centrality and extent to which informal negotiations take
place during protection proceedings in the Children’s Court. Swain and Rice (2009)
refer to these informal negotiations as taking place ‘in the shadow of the law’, that is, in
the background, in the corridors of the court, and in the waiting room areas before and
after the formal court mention or appearance. Observations indicated the extent to
which the process of negotiation, open dialogue and decision-making takes place
outside the formal courtroom settings. These informal discussions were often observed
to take place only between lawyers, and concerns about the manner of these discussions
were dismissed by some magistrates and lawyers as simply ‘the way things get done’.
Of particular significance to this research is the way in which these informal
negotiations conducted outside the courtroom effectively exclude parents and families
from having a voice in the system, from actively participating in decision-making and
disempowering them in the court process. One parent described this experience in the
following way:
I don’t like the way the lawyers go off and go into a separate sort of room, I don’t like that, I think that shouldn’t be allowed, like they’re talking about my things, I think I should know what’s going on
Interview #25, Parent
185
Another parent expressed the following view:
The lawyers seem to talk to each other while you’re waiting, they may be sorting things out but they don’t tell you anything, they don’t tell you what they’re saying, they might come and ask you one question about something.
Interview #26, Parent
On the other hand, one parent who was interviewed for this research stated that she was
aware of the nature and significance of these informal negotiations, and that she saw it
as being in her best interests to take an active role in these conversations and
negotiations. This same parent commented that she found the informal negotiating
process as being extremely beneficial:
Depending on how strong you are, you can get valuable information while you are waiting. You can brainstorm and throw ideas around as to what we’re going to do once we get in there. Again, it depends on your rapport with the people involved. I’m not scared to say to them “this is what I want to achieve today, what do you want to achieve”?
Interview #23, Parent
Unfortunately, the majority of parents who were interviewed for this research did not
share the same level of confidence in their ability to find themselves a place in the
negotiations. Observations indicated that the processes for achieving outcomes for
children and parents are very much dependent on, and guided by the parents’ lawyers
and the DCP legal representatives being open to negotiating, and open to new
suggestions and the capacity to think laterally.
Previous research by McConnell et al, (2002) has also raised concerns about the nature
of the formal negotiations that take place between parties during court proceedings.
McConnell et al, state that the language used, the conventions adhered to and the
interactions between articulate and educated personnel are often incomprehensible to
parents and particularly so to parents with intellectual disabilities, and can all serve to
186
further alienate and disempower those for whom there is real and justifiable concern
that they are left ignorant of what has been, or is about to be agreed.
7.8 LOCATING THE PROTECTION AND CARE JURISDICTION
I think that the people who work in the protection and care jurisdiction at the moment are committed. I think that the Court does want a better system. I just don’t know — I think we’re in a bit of a stalemate and we don’t know how to break the stalemate.
Interview #4, Lawyer
One of the most significant and unexpected issues that emerged from the data was in
relation to the current jurisdictional arrangements for the management of child welfare
matters in Western Australia. It was evident in all interviews with lawyers and
magistrates that this issue was clearly gathering interest and momentum. It was argued
by many that the protection and care jurisdiction would be more appropriately located,
and better served, being based within the Family Court of Western Australia rather than
the Children’s Court of Western Australia. A number of reasons were put forward as to
why the Family Court would be a more appropriate location. Primarily people spoke of
the ‘inextricable link’ that protection and care issues have with family issues, and one
lawyer explained this link in the following way:
You go to the Family Court and it’s much calmer, much more open, the ceilings are much higher. The Children’s Court doesn’t inspire anyone to think about the higher issues, the love and the affection of family relationship, the care. It confronts. It’s got that aggression that the criminal setting has where it’s all about incarceration or having people potentially locked up and all that sort of stuff, and people’s liberty being at risk in the criminal context. It’s totally different in the Family Court context, which is about relationships. And that’s where it should be, that’s where care and protection matters should be.
Interview #2, Lawyer
The issue of the location of the jurisdiction was raised independently by interviewees
on many occasions, and many different reasons were given for the relocation. The side-
187
by-side nature of the protection and care court with the criminal court was criticised for
the negative association with the criminal court, and for sending the wrong message to
children, parents and families involved in protection proceedings. It was also suggested
that the criminal procedure overtones in the protection and care jurisdiction are not in
fitting with what civil procedures in a civil jurisdiction should look like. One magistrate
described this situation in the following way:
The process also smacks of some criminal procedure as well and that goes to the fact that the parents view the Department [DCP] as being prosecutorial. The very nature of the removal of children really stands it aside from a civil proceeding in a sense because it’s such drastic action that’s taken and it’s done under the authority of warrants or by police officers. So it’s a jurisdiction that doesn’t necessarily sit neatly with the term ‘civil’ jurisdiction, I don’t think anyway.
Interview #16, Magistrate
While the majority of lawyers and some magistrates argued for the jurisdiction’s
relocation, not all magistrates were supportive of this position. The arguments against a
potential move have not been clearly defined or presented in the literature, and
consequently much of the discussion against a move is largely based on anecdotal
evidence. Magistrates who were opposed to relocation argued that the Children’s Court
is the most appropriate location for the protection and care jurisdiction because of the
nexus between youth offending and child welfare issues, and therefore one court should
deal with all of these problems under the same roof. Further, it was argued that the
Children’s Court, whether it deals with children who are offenders or children who are
in need of care and protection, is fundamentally dealing with welfare problems in
relation to children, and those two things are one and the same (Interview #16,
Magistrate).
This issue of where the jurisdiction is located is clearly a complex one, with many
factors to consider. One of the tensions that exist in this debate is in relation to
evidence. The Act states that the Children’s Court is not bound by the rules of evidence
188
(s.146), and that the court may inform itself on any matter, in any manner, it considers
appropriate, and that evidence is admissible despite the rule against hearsay. This is
different to the Family Court of Western Australia where the rules of evidence apply. It
has been suggested anecdotally that the DCP may not be in support of such relocation
given that currently the legislation allows much greater legal power to DCP than what
would be afforded in the Family Court of Western Australia.
In relation to the proposal of transferring the protection and care jurisdiction to the
Family Court of Western Australia, it is noted that in regional areas, Magistrates Courts
are already dealing with family law, child protection and family violence issues.
Transferring these matters to the Family Court and Children’s Court could potentially
transfer these matters to a proposed unified family court as appropriate (Jackson, 2011).
Previous arguments for a potential relocation of the jurisdiction were described in a
conference paper by Jackson (2009) presented at the Western Australia Family
Pathways Network Conference, and these arguments were previously outlined in
Chapter 4. Jackson notes that Western Australia is in a unique position in terms of its
jurisdictional capacity, to be the first state in Australia to create a Unified Family
Law/Child Protection Court. This proposed court would be based in part on the United
Family Court model as seen in the United States. The Unified Family Court is a
specialised and separately administered court with jurisdiction over a wide range of
family-related cases, including divorce and custody, child support, paternity, domestic
violence, juvenile delinquency, child abuse and neglect, adoption and guardianship of a
child. Key features of this court model are the specialisation of its judges and staff, the
breadth of its jurisdiction, and its separate administration (Ross, 1998). Advantages of
this approach include a specialised and well-trained judiciary, specialised support staff,
and the ability to coordinate different types of litigation affecting the same family.
It was suggested by one magistrate that the ‘relative autonomy’ of the Family Court of
Western Australia could allow for the creation of an innovative child protection sub-
189
jurisdiction within the Family Court. Another lawyer suggested this could be a ‘public
arm’ or ‘public chamber’ of the Family Court that deals specifically with protection
matters. It was also noted by both magistrates and lawyers that the Family Court’s
funding capacity, at both the state and federal levels, allows for greater access to
resources compared to the Children’s Court. It was also noted that the onsite
counselling and mediation services and facilities located within the Family Court
building could be of great benefit to the families involved in protection and care
matters.
Western Australia has recently benefited from major reforms to the Family Court that
included amendment to key legislation, and a move towards less adversarial and more
conciliatory methods of resolving conflict arising from relationship breakdown of
married or de-facto couples. As a result of these changes, mediation, conciliation and
case assessment conferences, rather than litigation, underpin the Family Court system,
which is another reason why the protection and care jurisdiction would benefit from
operating under such a court structure.
As already indicated in earlier chapters, in recent years the Family Court of Western
Australia has trialled a number of successful initiatives such as the Columbus Project
and the Children’s Cases Program, that have been underpinned by therapeutic
jurisprudence philosophy and practice. These initiatives, developed from an awareness
of the negative effects that lengthy and complex litigation have on children and
families, have since been found to have a positive impact on families’ and children’s
experiences of the Family Court legal process (Holden, 2001; Nicholson, 2001; Pike &
Murphy, 2006).
A number of people suggested that the Family Court is better resourced, positioned and
attuned to dealing with complex and difficult family situations compared to the
Children’s Court. Many people commented that the protection and care jurisdiction and
190
the children and families that it serves could all greatly benefit from the jurisdiction’s
relocation to the Family Court of Western Australia.
7.9 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the data in relation to the participation in the legal system of
parents and families appearing in child-protection court proceedings in Western
Australia. A micro-analytic therapeutic jurisprudence perspective was used to consider
the way in which participation can be either restricted or enhanced. A number of
individual and procedural barriers to participation in the legal system that result from
specific court practices, processes, rules and regulations in the court were identified.
Court processes, judicial approaches and legal structures were discussed in relation to
how they can facilitate participation.
What parents and families spoke about, and the issues they addressed related
predominantly to communication difficulties, time constraints, provision of information
and court processes. Almost everyone spoke about the difficulties they experienced as a
result of the complexity and formality of language used in the court as well as the
frequent use of legal jargon during court proceedings. They explained that these
difficulties were exacerbated during court appearances, particularly during mentions,
where the pace was described by parents as being too fast and too rushed, and where
the dialogue was predominantly between lawyers and the magistrate. People stated that
the pace often contributed to parents and families having difficulties in participating
and communicating during proceedings. Some lawyers agreed that this was a problem,
whereas others said they were unconcerned and simply spoke of how this was just “the
way things get done”. The majority of participants commented that the language used
in the court not only confused parents, but often alienated and excluded them from both
the court proceedings and the broader legal process. They all said that parents have a
general lack of understanding about the court and its processes, and many highlighted
the need for more accessible and specific information, about the process and the
preparation required when parents are representing themselves.
191
Another issue raised was how individual magistrates’ style and approach could affect
parents’ capacity to participate. Parents talked about the significant variation in the
attitude and manner of the respective magistrates, which was particularly evident when
some of them displayed a sense of empathy and a willingness to engage the parents in
the process. The majority of parents and lawyers commented on the variation in
magistrates’ communication skills, — some made efforts to explain things in terms that
parents understood, by referring to them by name, by attempting to pronounce names
correctly, or by making eye contact when they spoke to them. Parents also stated that
the lack of consistency of magistrates (due to the circuit system and rotating basis in
which magistrates in the Perth Children’s Court work) was particularly frustrating and
difficult, and often left them with a sense that case information was lost along the way.
Many participants spoke about the common delays and frequent adjournments in
proceedings that resulted in a general lack of progress at each court date. Parents
described these delays as being emotionally detrimental to themselves and their
children, particularly during the time following the removal of the child, and also in the
early stages of the court proceedings when there was reportedly little communication
between the caseworkers and the parents.
The most poignant issue that participants raised and spoke about at length was the
absolute lack of voice of parents and families in the court process. Parents talked about
having no voice, no rights and no place in the court process. They explained that some
of this voicelessness was related to the way in which they experienced negotiations
taking place in the court, that is, informally between lawyers and outside the courtroom
setting. Swain and Rice (2009) aptly refer to such negotiations as occurring in “the
shadow of the law”.
Of particular note was that people said that the pre-hearing conference process acted as
a facilitator to parents’ participation and how this forum enabled progress and equality
192
in the way people were treated; and most importantly, many people commented that
this was the only therapeutic or helpful component of the entire child-protection legal
process. Parents stated that they found the less formal structure of the conference
particularly helpful. Many people mentioned that there was great variation in
magistrates’ style and approach to convening the pre-hearing conference, and explained
how this could have a significant impact on not only how the conference was
experienced by participants, but also on the outcomes reached. Many suggestions were
offered about changes that needed to be made in the Children’s Court, and I capture
these suggestions in the concluding chapter when I review the research questions and
present the implications of my findings for therapeutic jurisprudence. In Chapter 8, I
address what the participants said about access to justice in the Children’s Court.
• accessing court resources and non-legal advocacy and support
• flexible service delivery.
A number of major reports by bodies such as national and state law-reform
commissions, and government and non-government bodies have stated that there are
various critical issues which can reduce access to justice (ALRC, 1997, 2000; Law
Reform Commission of Western Australia 1999; Disability Council of NSW, 2003;
Disability Discrimination Legal Service, 2003; Victoria Law Foundation, 2004; Law
and Justice Foundation of NSW, 2003, 2006). These issues include: the complexity of
the rules of court and court forms which can create significant barriers for court
participants, especially those who are unrepresented; the physical environment of the
court; and an atmosphere that alienates, excludes or disempowers court participants,
which can impinge upon an individual’s access to justice and fair processes. Other
critical issues that can affect access to justice and participation in the legal system
include advocacy and support, the adversarial system, physical access, perception of
roles, consistency and continuity, consultation, flexibility, cost, time and accountability.
The issues of cost, timeliness, efficiency and accessibility to the justice system are
complex and interrelated, and many of these are magnified for vulnerable populations, a
large proportion of who are over-represented in the Children’s Court. A number of
these issues have been analysed and considered by a growing number of law reform
196
bodies in both Australia and overseas. It is clear from the literature that many of these
problems continue to ‘bedevil’ civil justice systems around the world (ALRC, 2000).
Courts and tribunals have attempted to address these issues by introducing alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, in some cases as a statutory requirement and in
other cases as an option available to parties by consent. These mechanisms, which
include mediation, pre-trial conferencing and pre-trial conciliation, are introduced at an
early stage in the proceedings as a way of preventing the dispute or matters from going
to a trial. Federal tribunals, government and industry ombudsmen schemes, court and
community based ADR processes, conciliation schemes in the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
community justice and dispute resolution centres, and family and relationship
counselling, also all play a significant part in providing alternative mechanisms to deal
with and resolve legal disputes (ALRC, 2000).
While many of these processes have in part reduced the formality of the court process
for the participant, they have also raised other access to justice issues. For instance, the
Disability Council of NSW (2003) reported that certain alternative dispute resolution
processes in fact ‘camouflage’ the adversarial nature of mediation, which is particularly
problematic in situations and jurisdictions where there is a distinct power imbalance
between the parties involved in the ADR process.
The ALRC stated in their report ‘Managing Justice’ (2000) that access to justice can
only ever mean, in broad institutional and systemic terms, relatively equitable access to
the legal process. Further, that access to the system is no guarantee of a successful
outcome from the process, and thus is no guarantee of litigant satisfaction in all cases.
Critical to the subject matter of this thesis is the misunderstanding or misconception
that access to the legal system equates to access to equal treatment in that system.
Similarly, access to legal representation in the Children’s Court does not guarantee a
successful outcome, or necessarily equal treatment in the process, nor satisfaction with
197
the system.
8.3 LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Much of the literature on access to justice and the legal needs of people with a mental
illness, disability or who are homeless has primarily focused on criminal justice issues
rather than access to justice within the context of the civil system. In practice, the terms
‘access to justice’ and ‘legal needs’ tend to merge, especially in the context of their
functions. People do not need legal services in and of themselves, their need rather, is
of the ends that legal services can bring about (Schetzer, Mullins & Buonamano, 2002).
These ends may be in the form of specific legal remedies, reconciliation with another
party, or, quite simply, a sense of fairness or closure from some dispute. This research
similarly highlights that while parents are potentially disadvantaged by not having legal
representation, they are particularly upset by the injustice of not being able to obtain
legal representation or when their access to legal services is restricted.
Access to legal assistance for parents appearing in protection and care proceedings in
the Children’s Court in Western Australia is the single issue that raised the greatest
level of concern in this research. A number of concerns emerged from the data relating
predominantly to the following four areas:
• Eligibility for legal assistance
• Implications of limited legal assistance
• Parents feeling pressured to consent
• Self-represented parents at trial.
In Western Australia, under the Act, parents or persons responsible for the child or
children have the right to legal representation and to appear in person in the Children’s
Court (s.147). The ‘right’ to legal representation is a complex issue, and as the data
from this research indicate, a parent’s right to legal representation does not
automatically ensure legal assistance throughout the court process.
198
Chapter 3 outlined the literature indicating a link between parents and families involved
in child-protection court proceedings, and financial disadvantage. In Western Australia,
this situation commonly results in parents being unable to afford private legal
representation, and therefore being reliant on legal assistance from the Legal Aid
Commission of Western Australia.
Most people who were interviewed noted that while there has been significant
improvement in the area of legal representation for parents appearing in protection and
care proceedings since the introduction of the duty lawyer service in 2008, many
interviewees remained concerned about the proportion of parents who appear
unrepresented in these proceedings. These concerns related primarily to the significant
restrictions in Legal Aid Commission’s capacity to provide legal representation for all
parents appearing in protection proceedings, and also for parents who chose to contest
the protection application through to a trial.
In Western Australia, parents appearing in the Perth Children’s Court in relation to a
protection and care matter are usually represented by a duty lawyer whom they meet on
their first court appearance date. The duty lawyer service was designed to assist parents
when they first come to the court. The role of the duty lawyer is to give parents initial
legal and procedural advice and to represent the parents in court on their first mention
date.
The duty lawyer may apply for adjournments and they can appear on behalf of the
parents on at least the first and second dates in court. The duty lawyer can also provide
minor assistance services including: negotiate with the DCP and other parties to the
proceedings; help prepare court documents such as applications for interim contact,
placement and minutes of consent; and assist with accommodation and other issues that
may arise once protection proceedings begin. The duty lawyer can make referrals to
private lawyers and services, and can help the parents with their application for legal
199
assistance. If they are successful in their application, subsequent representation may be
provided by Legal Aid lawyers or private lawyers funded by Legal Aid (Legal Aid
Commission Western Australia, 2010).
If parents presented at their first court appearance without any form of legal
representation, magistrates were observed to adjourn proceedings to later that morning
or to a subsequent date, to allow them an opportunity to meet with the duty lawyer and
receive initial advice and assistance. This is particularly important for parents who are
unfamiliar with courts and their processes. While the duty lawyer initiative is seen to
help parents in the early stages and ‘front end’ of the court proceedings, people
explained that a number of problems tend to arise for parents in the later stages of the
court proceedings, particularly when they choose to contest the protection application
through to a trial.
In Western Australia, parents apply to the Legal Aid Commission who determines their
eligibility by using a means test and a reasonableness test. In other words, parents who
apply for legal assistance must firstly qualify financially to be eligible for a Grant of
Aid, and then the legal and factual merits of the application are considered in
determining eligibility. Legal assistance can be granted for initial advice and
“investigation into the likelihood of successfully defending the application” (Legal Aid
Commission Western Australia, 2010). The Commission must be satisfied, based on the
information provided by the parent that the proposed action has ‘merit’ in the strict
legal sense to the extent that there is a reasonable likelihood of success.
From what the participants said, it is evident that significant concerns exist in relation
to the way in which eligibility for a Grant of Aid is determined. It is argued by some
lawyers that the merit test is necessary due to the potential financial implications for the
Legal Aid Commission if every parent was legally represented through to trial. One
magistrate stated that it is not appropriate to have a lawyer committed to a two or three
day trial when it is obvious that a child is in need of care and protection, particularly in
200
light of the fact that those resources could be better spent elsewhere, such as in the
provision of more duty lawyers or allowing more time to be allocated to each pre-
hearing conference. It was also suggested that pursuing each matter through to trial
would not only escalate costs, but could also cause matters to be further delayed and
protracted.
On the other hand, it is argued by many participants that the determination of whether a
parent has a ‘reasonable prospect’ of successfully defending the application is not a fair
and equitable approach, given the massive disparity in legal and other resources
between the DCP and the parents. This issue was consistently raised in interviews as an
issue of concern across all interviewee groups. Interviewees observed that parents
commence these proceedings ‘on the back-foot’, and that their prospects of successfully
defending an application are diminished even before the case begins. They suggested
that defining the ‘merits’ of a case should instead be defined in a much broader sense
and should consider parents’ strengths, their needs and their wishes for the child.
Arguably, seeing or defining success or merits of a case in a narrow sense appears to
dismiss a number of principles on which the Australian legal system is built, most
notably respecting due process, equity, and preserving fairness.
In addition to the issue of how eligibility for legal aid is determined, interviewees
indicated there are a number of significant implications of the limited availability of
legal resources. It is apparent from interviewees’ comments that the hours of legal
assistance that the Grant of Aid allows are currently insufficient. This was evident in
parents’ frustration with the limited ‘face-time’ they had with their Legal Aid lawyer,
and in reports of their only contact with their lawyer being in the minutes prior to and
immediately following their court appearance.
Lack of adequate time for lawyers and their clients to meet is not a unique problem to
Western Australia. Research conducted in British Columbia by Bennett and
Sadrehashemi (2008) similarly found it common for lawyers to meet with parents
201
involved in child-protection court proceedings at the courthouse, immediately prior to
their court appearance. Such limited face-time can contribute to parents’ feelings of
confusion and alienation, evidenced both in the literature and in this research. Parents
explained that meeting at the courthouse in the minutes prior to the court proceedings
put them under immense pressure to make difficult and significant decisions on the spot
about their families.
Drawing on a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, the less time lawyers spend with
their client, the less likely it is that they will be able to build a trusting relationship
where the client feels safe to disclose information and become engaged in the process
(Silver, 2000; Madden & Brooks, 2010). Fostering the development of therapeutic
relationships between lawyers and their clients is extremely important for the court
participant, particularly for those who are vulnerable or powerless. This research
indicates that as a result of the restrictions on the Grant of Aid, there is very little time
or opportunity for such therapeutic relationships to be established.
Access to legal representation has implications for all parties involved in child-
protection court proceedings, not just the parents. Observations of pre-hearing
conferences suggested that parents were at a disadvantage when they did not have legal
representation. In order for these conferences to be truly effective, all parties should be
legally represented. A number of lawyers suggested that the limited Grant of Aid
affected their capacity to do their job —for example, it lead to restrictions on taking
instructions and preparing clients prior to the court hearing. Many interviewees
commented that the limited time could be quickly used up as a result of the delays and
protracted nature of protection proceedings in the Children’s Court. All magistrates
who were interviewed noted that legal services for parents who appeared in the
protection and care jurisdiction were overstretched and under-resourced.
One of the most concerning implications of limited legal assistance in Western
Australia relates to parents who choose to contest the protection application, and are
202
then advised by the Legal Aid Commission that their Grant of Aid will cease (or not be
extended) and they will therefore be required to represent themselves at trial. All but
one parent interviewee wanted and believed in contesting the protection application, but
did not have access to legal assistance or the personal capacity to pursue a trial. This
was a very real concern for many participants who were interviewed. Lawyers and
magistrates likewise identified this situation as a cause for serious concern. One
magistrate described this situation in the following way:
One of the great frustrations of course, is that Legal Aid provides representation up to a certain point and then pulls the pin. Particularly when people say “well I don’t agree with the Department’s [DCP] position and I want to contest this”.
Interview #16, Magistrate
A significant proportion of parents said they felt coerced, pressured to consent, felt
railroaded to consent to the protection application, or were not given any other choice
but to “settle out of court”, because they felt they would lose their legal representation
if they opposed the application. A number of lawyers acknowledged this situation, with
one Legal Aid lawyer commenting that she was often required to say to her clients:
“Look you’re going have to agree to the protection order otherwise you’re going to
have to represent yourself” (Interview #4, Lawyer). One parent described her
experience of this situation in the following way:
When the Department filed all the paperwork relating to our case, my solicitor took one look at it and said “you don’t stand a chance, give in”, and he wouldn’t go to a trial….so what do you do? He forced us to consent and work with the Department as much as we can, as well as you can, which is what I’ve been doing for the past 7 years.
Interview #23, Parent
One magistrate described this situation as being “guilty for convenience, I guess”
(Interview #16, Magistrate). It raises the question of how many parents consent to a
protection application purely on the basis that if they choose to contest the application,
their only option would be to represent themselves at trial. The therapeutic
203
jurisprudence literature suggests that approaches that are the opposite of self-
determination — paternalism and coercion — promote resistance and inhibit successful
action (King, 2009a:3). Arguably, these pressures to capitulate or self-represent at trial
challenge the Australian legal system’s commitment to justice, equity and fairness. The
actual practice of parents representing themselves at trial in the Children’s Court is
equally concerning. The data clearly indicate a number of serious concerns with this
practice. One magistrate described this situation of parents representing themselves by
saying:
They [self-represented parents at trial] leave us in some ludicrous situations. It’s become high farce for unqualified people to act for themselves, but they’re forced to do so, and the bizarre charades unfold.
Interview #15, Magistrate
In Western Australia, it is generally accepted that most protection and care matters are
resolved without recourse to a formal trial. Lawyers and magistrates generally
acknowledged that most protection orders made by the Children’s Court are made
without the need to go to trial. Interviewees reported that this was often because parents
would not have legal representation if they pursued a trial, and therefore many of them
consented to the protection order at the pre-trial stage; or alternatively, protection
orders were made because parents did not turn up to the court hearing and subsequently
orders were made ex parte.
Detailed statistics of court outcomes in the Children’s Court of Western Australia are
not readily available to show the actual proportion of matters that are resolved by trial.
It was suggested by one lawyer that of the 1000–1200 protection applications made per
year by DCP, approximately 40 or 50 of them would be listed for trial, and most of
those would settle beforehand (Interview #2, Lawyer). While the DCP Annual Report
states that in 2010 there were 2745 children in Western Australia on care orders
(2010:24), it does not state the number made by consent compared to the number of
204
orders that were made as an outcome of a contested trial.
Lawyers and magistrates spoke candidly of the damage and devastation that can be
caused when parents go to trial self-represented. A number of interviewees highlighted
the negative impact the trial process can have on the parents and to their relationship
with the DCP — a relationship that is arguably very important for the sake of the child.
People also suggested that in situations where relatives or friends are involved in a trial
as witnesses, there is the potential for irreparable damage to the parents’ support
network as a result of the DCP cross-examination process. One magistrate described the
damage the trial process can cause by saying:
I always go into these proceedings as an “everybody loses situation”. I mean obviously at the end of the process a reconstructed family is a win for everybody. That’s superb. But to get to the point where we’re having a trial, there can be no winners there because the process itself is such a terrible experience for people to have to go through. Now I’m of the view that if a person wants a lawyer and can’t get one because they can’t afford one and have been refused Legal Aid, then they should not be forced to a trial.
Interview #13, Magistrate
For self-represented parents, the issue of them being unprepared for court was noted as
an additional area of concern. Interviewees talked of a lack of information, guidance or
structure in place for parents who are self-represented in the Children’s Court, a
situation which is “appalling given the stakes they’re playing for” (Interview #15,
Magistrate). One lawyer described this lack of direction or guidance in the following
way:
When you’re going to a trial there’s no clear process about self-represented parents and what they have to do. Say, for example, they have to file statements or subpoena material, all those types of things, it is very ad hoc. Parents need guidance as to how to do it and if the structure is not there to support it then, you know, trials often fall over.
Interview #12, Lawyer
205
Trials involving self-represented parents were described by one lawyer as being
“painful to watch, and painful to be in” (Interview #2, Lawyer), and another magistrate
commented that: “It’s a false economy for people not to be represented” (Interview
#15, Magistrate). Observations indicated that parents often find the trial process
extremely difficult and struggle with the technical and complex procedures. In addition
to the emotional devastation that the trial process can have, interviewees raised
important questions as to whether parents who represent themselves in a trial, in fact
receive a fair trial.
Most interviewees commented that parents appearing in protection proceedings are
often confused and overwhelmed by the court and its processes, feelings that are
ultimately likely to be exacerbated for parents who are self-represented in a trial. One
magistrate made the important point that when parents are nervous and confused, and
the dispute is about their children, the expectation seems unreasonable that they
remember what leading questions are, or how they should conduct a cross-examination.
The Children’s Court has made recent efforts to address this need for better access to
information. In 2009, the Children’s Court launched a new website that provides a link
to a Child Protection Proceedings Brochure for parents and guardians. It includes
information on what happens after a child has been removed from its parents, tips for
going to court, information if the parents opposes the application, an explanation of pre-
hearing conferences and the trial, a link to the court’s Practice Directions, a glossary of
terms, and a brief overview of questioning witnesses in a trial.
The provision of legal representation for parents appearing in protection proceedings is
significant for a number of reasons. Prominent therapeutic jurisprudence commentators
commonly refer to how having a ‘voice’ in the legal and court process can empower
and validate the court participants’ experience of the court process. The presence of a
lawyer can promote a sense in parents that they have a genuine voice in the process.
Interestingly, not all parents in this research associated legal representation with having
206
a voice in the system. As the following comment suggests, the presence of a lawyer
may not necessarily give parents a voice, although it can empower them to have options
and a choice, and to express self-determination:
I don’t think I could have done it without a lawyer…Initially I went every time, but then when I felt like I was basically drowning, and that I did not have a hope, because I wasn’t being heard, I wasn’t being listened to, I just decided that I wasn’t going to do it anymore, I rang up my lawyer and said “please represent me in there”.
Interview #10, Parent
Interviews and observations indicated that the presence of a lawyer often gave parents
the opportunity to be active participants in the proceedings, particularly during the pre-
hearing conference process. Interviewees spoke of how lawyers can help parents by
preparing them for what they can expect in the courtroom and from the proceedings, by
explaining terminology and legal references, and explaining the roles of key players.
By helping parents to participate more effectively in the proceedings, and by supporting
their inclusion in the legal process, lawyers can contribute to creating a process that is
fair and equitable for parents and families.
Lawyers who have the capacity to foster a therapeutic relationship with their client also
have the potential to validate parents’ position in the proceedings, which can contribute
to their satisfaction and confidence in the system and its process (Daicoff, 2008;
Madden & Brooks, 2010). Lawyers who support parents’ self-determination and
capacity for choice can also empower them throughout the process. Lawyers also have
the potential to motivate the parents towards positive behavioural change, and can
potentially act as a ‘buffer’ to the adversarialism that is commonly seen in this
jurisdiction.
The overwhelming majority of interviewees made reference to the fact that all parents
should be legally represented in protection proceedings. One magistrate said:
207
The same as when one is charged with murder, there’s no merit test applied, you simply get aid, full stop…. …No matter how strong the evidence against the parents is, there’s always a role for counsel. And I think it’s a travesty of justice. It’s not fair to the parents. It’s not fair to the Department [DCP] who has to amend their approach where the parents are unrepresented. It’s not fair to the court who has to try and accommodate one party being unrepresented and it’s got the might of the State with virtually, compared to the parents, unlimited resources. It’s plain and simply wrong.
Interview #15, Magistrate
Many participants agreed that given the nature of protection proceedings, the magnitude
of the decisions being made by the Children’s Court and the outcomes for the child, and
for the parents who live with the long-term legal consequences of these court
proceedings, parents’ capacity to obtain legal representation should not be limited by
their income, the merit of their casse, or likelihood of success. These issues raise
serious questions about the adequacy of Legal Aid funding that is required in Western
Australia in order to provide parents with an appropriate level of legal assistance.
In addition to the capacity of the State to provide additional Legal Aid funding, it is
also important to consider that much depends on the training, experience, attitude and
personality of the individual lawyers and magistrates, and the extent to which they
demonstrate practices in accordance with therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural
justice that can also affect access to justice needs.
Access to justice is noted to be a major challenge in various legal contexts, but one with
particular relevance to parents and families who appear in child-protection court
proceedings in the Children’s Court. The data demonstrate that limited availability of
legal assistance by Legal Aid can obstruct access to justice for those who cannot afford
private legal representation. The following comment by a magistrate sums up of all of
these issues relating to the need for adequate legal assistance for all parents appearing
in protection and care proceedings:
208
I just think our society has an obligation to ensure when the State takes the action it does, the State is tested, is put under pressure, and that that person has somebody beside her to help her through the process, because ultimately if she doesn’t get a lawyer, and she’s forced to a three- or four-day trial, with her intellectual disability, and she loses, which was inevitable from the beginning, she’s going to feel shafted and she’s going to be no better at understanding what happened at the end of it, than she was at the beginning.
Interview #13, Magistrate
8.4 COURT RESOURCES Change? Well, I think it would be good to have some more supports actually in the Court. As I say, better facilities for private interviewing, counsellors on tap as well as duty lawyers. Extra resources like that. A counter to that suggestion might be: well, those resources are there in the community, but in fact they are not. You will have heard: there are time delays and the waiting periods for people to get booked into counselling are crazy. Trying to get a psych report or psychiatrists report — you wait for a long time. We really do have a problem.
Interview # 13, Magistrate
The issue of resources was mentioned in most, if not all interviews in various contexts.
Significantly, this issue was raised in relation to the need for parents and families to
have better access to support services and non-legal assistance during their court
involvement, as well as better access to legal representation. Many magistrates and
lawyers raised the issue of resources in relation to the need for more court facilities
including interview rooms that would offer privacy, conferencing rooms and
counselling services. Three lawyers who were interviewed suggested that the provision
of onsite childcare facilities could assist parents in being better prepared for, and
focused on the court proceedings.
Parents and families talked about many needs other than legal representation. Most
spoke of their experience in the waiting room areas as being particularly distressing.
They talked about: a lack of privacy, particularly when they were required to meet and
talk with lawyers or caseworkers; the negative connotations of having their names
209
called out on the overhead speaker to announce their matter was ready for court; the
long delays in the waiting room area being particularly stressful; these areas being so
over-crowded first thing in the morning. A number of parents articulated their need for
support and advocacy during the court proceedings, and others spoke of a need for
more accessible legal information to assist them with their court matter.
As discussed in Chapter 3, many parents appearing in protection proceedings often
have limited personal, family, economic or social supports around them, and many lead
complicated and chaotic lives. Observations and interviews indicate there is a real need
for additional non-legal services for parents appearing in the Children’s Court. Non-
legal services can provide different types of assistance including support to parents and
families during the court process, advocacy on parents’ behalf, or by providing general
support at court. In addition, there is a real need for extra court resources for parents
and families including onsite counselling services, voluntary court support, childcare
facilities and a child-friendly space within the court building. Each of these court
resources will now be briefly described.
Onsite counselling
The need for onsite counselling services was raised in many interviews. Parents spoke
of feeling stressed and overwhelmed by the court process, and magistrates spoke of
their frustrations with the delays in parents accessing external support services. Long
waitlists and delays in accessing counselling and parenting services in the community
were repeatedly mentioned as a source of frustration. One magistrate commented that
there is a real pressure on resources for actual therapeutic services, because so much
money is soaked up in the delays and protracted court processes (Interview #13,
Magistrate). He and others observed how these delays translate into a lack of feedback
to the magistrates and the court as to parents’ participation or progress in external
support services.
210
A number of lawyers and magistrates contrasted the lack of court resources and
facilities within the Children’s Court with the Family Court of Western Australia. The
Family Court has seen many recent changes to its court practices, processes and its
legislation in order to better support families and their children. The Family Court Act
1975 (WA), under part 4, provides for a range of non-court based services within the
Family Court including family counselling, family dispute resolution and arbitration.
This research clearly suggests that the Children’s Court could benefit from having core
counselling services located onsite. The Family Court of Western Australia Counselling
and Consultancy Service, located onsite, is staffed by individuals with specialist
knowledge and expertise in working with children and families experiencing
relationship difficulties after separation. Family consultants in the Family Court assist
the court to individually case manage every child-related case before the court. This can
involve making referrals to other agencies, gathering information and reporting back to
the magistrate or judge who is responsible for the case. Importantly, the case
management approach means the same family consultant remains with the case from
the first day of court until the making of final orders. This creates an opportunity for
each family to have continuity during their time in the court. Individual case
management and the continuity that it brings is a practice steeped in therapeutic
jurisprudence thinking, and reflects how access to justice and participation of parents
and families can be enhanced in the context of family law.
Onsite assessments
The need for individual and family assessments to be conducted onsite at the Children’s
Court was raised in a number of interviews. Two of the magistrates who were
interviewed spoke of their frustrations with the long delays in obtaining court
assessment reports from external contractors. One magistrate said that three- to four-
month delays in obtaining completed assessment reports was normal, and another
magistrate gave an example of one occasion when the court waited eight months for a
report that effectively told them nothing that they did not already know.
211
While the new Act has enabled the Children’s Court to order assessment reports, it has
been reported by magistrates that due to the delays in obtaining the completed reports,
these are now rarely requested. As noted by Bennett and Sadrehashemi (2008) in their
research on the child welfare system in British Columbia, goals in legislation are of
little value to the families they are meant to protect when the system is not provided
with adequate resources to achieve them.
Magistrates and parents could benefit from individual and family assessments being
conducted onsite at the court. This would likely ensure that reports are completed and
returned to magistrates in a shorter timeframe than what is currently the case.
Independent assessment reports can be extremely valuable for magistrates’ decision-
making, particularly given that they are an objective assessment of an individual or
family, separate from the assessments and reports conducted and submitted to the court
by DCP.
An onsite counselling service in the form of a Court Clinic could provide both the
infrastructure for these assessment reports to be conducted, and also the initial
counselling services for parents and families. This could be modelled on the Children’s
Court Clinic in Victoria, which is an independent organisation that conducts
psychological and psychiatric assessments of children and families for the Children’s
Court, and in some cases provides limited treatment. The reports provided by the Clinic
are used to assist the judge or magistrates in making decisions in the Family Division
cases. Only the judge or magistrate can request an assessment by the Children’s Court
Clinic, and these assessments are conducted by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists
who are engaged by the Director of the Clinic as needed. The majority of the
assessments are conducted onsite at the court. Importantly, in Victoria, the timeframe
for these assessment reports is usually a matter of days, rather than months as seen in
the Children’s Court of Western Australia.
212
Court support
Legal and court participants were asked their opinion on the supports parents need in
terms of navigating their way through the Children’s Court legal process. As previously
mentioned, the overwhelming majority of interviewees commented that parents and
families need greater support during the court process, advocacy and general support at
court.
While the Perth Children’s Court has a ‘Voluntary Court Welfare’ desk located in the
central foyer area of the court, I observed that this desk was often unattended. The
voluntary court welfare officer whom I approached described her role as assisting youth
who are appearing in criminal matters to fill out their Legal Aid application and
paperwork, in order to expedite the intake process for the onsite duty lawyer. The
voluntary court welfare officer said that it was not her role to provide any assistance or
support services to parents or families appearing in protection and care proceedings.
Based on the data from this research, this seems somewhat surprising given the
overwhelming need for parents and families to access help and support when they
attend the Children’s Court for child protection matters.
An important non-legal support service currently in place in Western Australia is the
Family Inclusion Network (FinWA). The network, which was established in 2004,
provides various services for parents who are in crisis following the removal of their
children. In 2009, the network published a comprehensive Information Kit for parents
involved with the Department for Child Protection called “Finding Your Way with
DCP”. The kit provides detailed information on the child protection process in Western
Australia, and a large segment is dedicated to the court and legal process. This
information includes explanations on protection applications, legal and court
terminology, types of protection orders, court process flow charts and information on
preparing for court.
213
Interviews and observations clearly indicate that the provision of this type of non-legal
support is greatly needed at the present time, and would benefit all parents and families
appearing in protection proceedings in the Children’s Court. It is particularly
concerning that only two parents interviewed for this research were aware of the
operation of FinWA, suggesting that the real issue is that parents and families need to
be better informed about existing services and supports. Services such as FinWA have
been designed specifically to support and help parents to be better prepared for, and
engaged in the child protection legal and court process.
Children’s courts in other states in Australia have addressed this need by providing
designated onsite services to assist parents appearing in protection proceedings. In the
Queensland and Victorian Children’s courts, the Court Network support service
provides non-legal support for parents and families involved in protection proceedings.
The Court Network was established in 1980 as a voluntary, free, non-legal court
support service that operates onsite in courts in various jurisdictions throughout
Queensland and Victoria, and currently has approximately 400 volunteers. They
support families, adults and children who attend court and require support, information
or referral services. In 2007–08, 5354 court participants were assisted in the Melbourne
Children’s Court by volunteers (Court Network, 2008). These figures suggest that the
Court Network has identified and addressed a much-needed service, and one that may
have relevance and applicability in the Children’s Court of Western Australia.
Creating a child-friendly space
Observations of the Children’s Court waiting room areas indicate that many parents
appearing in protection proceedings have young children or babies in their care, and are
often required to wait for long periods of time for their matter to be heard. Parents
described this waiting time as particularly stressful, which can be magnified if young
children or babies also have to wait in the confined spaces of the court.
214
My observations of the waiting room areas were that the court spaces have not been
designed to accommodate families or young children. A counter to that observation
might be that courts are not an appropriate place to bring young children; however, as
previously discussed in Chapter 3, many of these families have limited social, familial
or economic resources to assist with childcare and therefore have no other choice but to
bring their children to the court with them.
The therapeutic jurisprudence and court architecture literature indicates that the
physical court design and court spaces can have either a positive or a negative impact
on how people experience the justice system (Kennedy & Tait, 1999; Missingham et
al., 2002; Brawn, 2005; Richardson, 2005). The physical spaces of a court can be
designed to elicit a sense of wellbeing in court participants, and can enable or facilitate
their access to justice. Both the literature and this research suggest that the physical
environment of the court, specifically the waiting room areas can be alienating for
parents and families. Waiting in crowds of anxious and nervous people can magnify the
stress that parents are likely to be experiencing, and can further affect how parents
present in the courtroom.
A number of Children’s courts around Australia have addressed the need for more
child-friendly spaces within the court building by creating small, designated,
partitioned-off areas with soft mats, toys and books for children. Observations of the
layout and design of the Children’s Court of Western Australia indicate that changes to
the existing space need not be major, in order to create an effective and friendly
‘Children’s Corner’. The Youth Court in South Australia and the Children’s Court
Clinic in New South Wales have created their child-friendly space by designating a
room that has toys and books for the children.
Onsite childcare facilities
A number of lawyers commented on the lack of childcare facilities within the
Children’s Court building. Comparisons were made by lawyers working in both
215
jurisdictions to the onsite childcare facilities provided by the Family Court of Western
Australia. It was argued that such facilities could allow parents an opportunity to be
better prepared for, and focused on their court appearance, which has the potential to
support a more positive engagement for parents in the court process.
The Family Court of Western Australia provides an onsite childcare facility. This free
service is staffed by fully qualified childcare workers and has toys, videos, puzzles,
books, games and art activities. The childcare facility is promoted as a service “to
entertain your children while you attend to your court business” (Family Court of
Western Australia, 2010).
Interestingly, the Department of the Attorney General Western Australia website
promotes free access to child-minding services for those attending courts in Western
Australia. This free service reportedly uses local childcare centres and is available to
jurors, witnesses, defendants and litigants, and is promoted as “Helping you play your
part in the justice system without the added stress of finding a babysitter” (Department
of the Attorney General, Western Australia, 2010). The onsite childcare services are
currently available to litigants appearing in the Family Court, District Court,
Magistrates Court, Supreme Court and Coroner’s Court of Western Australia, but most
surprisingly, are not available to parents and families appearing in the Children’s Court
— a court which is all about children!
8.5 RIGIDITY vs. FLEXIBILITY
Interviewees identified flexible service delivery as an important strategy to address
barriers to access to justice and participation in the legal system. Key issues that many
people focused on related to the style and approach of the magistrate convening the pre-
hearing conference, and the willingness or otherwise of magistrates and lawyers to
being open to problem-solving and alternative solutions.
216
Observations of pre-hearing conferences indicated vast differences in the convenors’
flexibility and willingness to engage in problem solving. During a number of pre-
hearing conferences that I observed there were discrepancies between caseworkers and
parents, particularly around negotiating better contact regimes for parents and their
children, or in relation to accessing services. It was also clear that some magistrates
were more open, flexible and willing to engage in problem-solving discussions in order
to find solutions:
One of the frustrations I have found is a need to actually become a hands-on caseworker. Rather than the court really refining its inquiry into whether children are in need of protection, we’re spending a lot of time working out how we sort out contact. For example “well if the resources aren’t here to do it on Wednesday, when can we do it?”… ...You’ve got to ask the question— is that what we’re really here to do? Because that sort of thing should be happening well and truly away from the courthouse, but at the same time, if the court’s used in that manner, and that starts building confidence and rapport between the parties, then maybe that’s how the court can best use its power, for people to give undertakings.
Interview #16, Magistrate
My observations of pre-hearing conferences clearly indicated that not all magistrates
appeared willing to engage in lengthy and involved discussions, and not all appeared
open and flexible to alternative solutions. However, some magistrates were observed to
show their interest in the parents meeting the DCP’s requirements and expectations,
most often exhibited by a caring concern and taking the time to problem-solve
important issues for parents. This of course is related in part to the issue of court
resources, in terms of the amount of time that is allocated to each pre-hearing
conference.
Observations of court proceedings and pre-hearing conferences as well as interviews,
indicated that an approach that was caring and genuine, and conveyed concern could
affect parents’ overall experience of the court system. This suggests that judicial
interaction that is flexible and promotes shared respect between magistrates and parents
217
may also help to promote parents’ engagement and compliance with DCP.
A number of initiatives and alternative methods based on a more flexible service
delivery approach to traditional child-protection court processes have emerged in recent
years in response to the criticisms of the traditional legalistic, formalistic and forensic
approach that has dominated the child protection system. New processes that may
assist the resolution of child protection matters by agreement rather than by
adjudication have emerged, and have been implemented around Australia and some are
currently being trialled in Western Australia.
The Geraldton Family Care Program (King & Tatasciore, 2005) is an example of how
flexible service delivery can have positive outcomes for all parties involved in child-
protection court proceedings. A flexible service delivery approach saw the use of
regular case reviews via adjournments, in order to allow parents an opportunity to
participate in agreed programs, and allowed the court to review parents’ progress on
requirements stipulated by the court.
Initiatives such as the conferencing and mediation processes that have driven change in
the Family Court of Western Australia, and the broader creation of problem-solving
courts are all based on more individualised and flexible responses to family problems.
Other initiatives and alternative approaches to traditional child-protection court
proceedings that are driven by a need for greater access to justice and a more flexible
service-delivery approach include the creation of Care Circles (Wood Inquiry, 2008)
and Family Group Conferencing (Harris, 2008), and in the United States, the Unified
Family Court model and the Family Treatment Court model have emerged in response
to similar concerns.
The current focus on alternative dispute resolution processes, the growing international
movement to embrace restorative justice in criminal justice administration, and the use
of conferencing approaches in juvenile and family law are all examples of alternative
218
approaches to the administration of justice, which are based on a relational approach to
the practice of law, and are driven by more flexible service delivery.
From a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, situations that provide increased
interaction between magistrates and parents present an opportunity for magistrates to
use a flexible approach to demonstrate positive role modelling, and to promote
negotiation. From a micro-therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, the data also suggest
that a more flexible approach can be provided when the needs of parents are catered for
— allowing for breaks in the conferences or court proceedings, and allowing more time
for explanations. These strategies may assist in overcoming stress and communication
difficulties often experienced by parents appearing in protection proceedings.
The Disability Council of NSW made the observation in the report ‘A Question of
Justice’ (2003) that the justice system is rigid and inflexible, it operates according to
strict timeframes and is shaped by ‘norms’ that fail to acknowledge community
diversity. It further reports that procedures in the justice system are applied narrowly
and inflexibly because the system views flexibility as procedural unfairness.
8.6 LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Legal and court participants were asked about their impressions of the workings of the
new Children’s and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). Views and perspectives on
the new legislation in action were varied. Key issues of concern related to the
legislation being overly complicated, the limited protection-order options that the new
legislation allows, and the fact that there is no national, uniform child-protection
legislation currently in place.
A number of lawyers and magistrates were critical of the excessively complicated
nature of the new legislation stating that it was too long, included confusing
terminology, had inconsistencies in it, and that the layout was not ‘user friendly’. It is
particularly concerning that the new legislation was considered confusing by those who
219
have legal training, let alone what this would mean for parents who are self-represented
and may require the use of the new legislation in preparing for their matter. The way in
which the complicated nature of the new legislation can affect families’ access to
justice is exemplified in the following comment:
Most of the clients that we deal with had problems enough dealing with the Child Welfare Act [1947] which was a very simple piece of legislation, which runs to only about 30 or 40 operative provisions compared to what is now a book.
Interview #1, Lawyer
The new legislation was criticised by the majority of magistrates and lawyers for the
limited protection-order options that it allows. Under the new legislation there are four
types of protection orders available to the Children’s Court: protection order
(supervision), protection order (enduring parental responsibility), protection order
(time-limited 2 years), and protection order (time-limited 18 years). For a full
description of each protection order option, see Appendix A.
The new legislation allows for only two protection orders with timeframes: either a 2-
year protection order or an 18-year protection order. Under the previous legislation,
there was an additional option of a 5-year protection order, as well as an option for a
protection order with an open timeframe to allow magistrates to use their discretion to
determine the duration of the order. It was suggested by many lawyers and magistrates
that children and parents would benefit from a temporary protection order, which could
be discharged by the parents showing evidence that they had addressed or rectified the
protection problems. It was also suggested that the protection order timeframe should
be left open to the discretion of the magistrate to decide, which could potentially give
parents greater hope, optimism and incentive to complete the DCP requirements in
order to reunite with their children.
220
Other concerns were raised about the protection order options that are available under
the new legislation. The supervision order was criticised by one interviewee for not
specifying which parent the child would live with, an omission that would be
particularly problematic if parents separated or engaged in Family Court proceedings.
The supervision order was also criticised by two magistrates and a number of lawyers
because under the Act there is no provision for any sanction on parents for non-
compliance with court orders. It was argued that as a result, there would be no recourse
for the DCP when a parent did not comply with a court order, other than for DCP to
return to the Children’s Court and apply for an alternative protection order of increased
severity or longer timeframe.
Interviewees commented that on some occasions the supervision order can be a more
appropriate option than deciding whether or not an order is needed, as this can “open
more options and everyone can aim for something that’s slightly less of an intervention
for the family, which is a good thing” (Interview #5, Lawyer). Supervision orders were
used in the Geraldton Family Care Program (King & Tatasciore, 2005) and this option
was reported as being beneficial for parents and children, because by virtue of parents
having to attend the court on a regular basis as per the conditions in the order, the court
could better monitor the parents and the progress of the case. Court reviews also
provided the court with the opportunity to provide encouragement to parents, to praise
them when progress was made and to support their self-efficacy, and their confidence
in their ability to address their problems.
Another benefit of the new legislation was noted to be the way in which information is
now shared between DCP and parents and their lawyers. This was noted to be
particularly evident in relation to the way that documentation is now shared between
parties in advance of the court appearance. The changes seen around the issue of the
provision of information, which is explored in greater depth in the following chapter,
was described by one magistrate in the following way:
221
The culture as to how a case is prepared, presented and made available to the opposition is different now as a result of the new legislation. So that has been good.
Interview #13, Magistrate
8.7 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the data in relation to how participants perceive access to
justice can be potentially compromised or enhanced in the Children’s Court. The notion
of access to justice is discussed with reference to therapeutic jurisprudence values and
critiques of the legal system. The data presented indicate that access to justice as
defined for this thesis involves more than access to formal legal representation and the
courts. The issues people addressed and what they talked about related predominantly
to access to legal representation, court resources, non-legal support, and the need for
legal processes to be more flexible.
It was overwhelmingly clear that the key issue of concern of the participants was about
availability and access to legal representation. Many different concerns were mentioned
including how eligibility for a Grant of Aid is determined by the Legal Aid
Commission, implications of limited or insufficient Grants of Aid, and the options left
to parents who chose to contest the matter without legal representation. Many people
commented that the determination of whether a parent has a ‘reasonable prospect’ of
successfully defending the application is not a fair and equitable approach, given the
massive disparity in legal and other resources afforded to the State compared to parents.
This was consistently raised in interviews as an issue of concern across all interviewee
groups. Most parents who were interviewed spoke of feeling ‘pressured’ to consent to a
protection order, given their belief that their only option if they chose to contest the
protection application would be to represent themselves at a trial. The practice of
parents being self-represented in a trial against the State, and the devastation this can
cause, was noted by a number of magistrates and lawyers to be an issue requiring
serious and urgent attention.
222
Many participants who work in the Children’s Court including magistrates, lawyers and
court staff talked about a need for onsite counselling and court support services for
parents and families involved in protection proceedings, as well as a need for
administrative facilities to enable court assessments to be done onsite. People said that
there was a need for such services, given the long waitlists for external counselling
services. The delays in obtaining individual and family assessment reports from
external contractors were said to contribute to drawn-out court processes and delays in
finalising cases. Many lawyers and magistrates made comparison with the onsite
counselling and assessment services of the Family Court of Western Australia. A
number of participants who work in the Children’s Court also said there was a need for
onsite child care facilities, although this was not mentioned by the parents who were
interviewed.
In relation to how the new legislation is working in the Children’s Court, some
participants criticised the overly complicated nature of the legislation, others were
critical of the limited protection order options that are available, and others commented
on the need for a national, uniform child-protection legislation to be in place.
People generally spoke about the need for greater flexibility in the way in which child
protection court processes take place. Some people said they would like to see more
problem-solving and alternative solutions rather than reliance on a “perfunctory
approach” to dealing with these matters. Many participants talked about their positive
experience of the pre-hearing conference forum, and commented on how the
conferences enabled greater flexibility in how discussions took place, how problems
were worked through and how solutions were reached.
The next chapter considers the implications of these data in relation to the research
questions and therapeutic jurisprudence, and in concluding, explores the potential for
223
change at a macro conceptual level to address issues around the adversarial culture that
remains in place in the court and ethics in the practice of law.
APPENDIX A Protection orders in Western Australia When the Children’s Court of Western Australia determines the protection application, it may make one of four protection orders: Type of Order Max Length of time Effect Protection Order (Supervision)
Up to 2 years. Can be extended only once for another period of not more than 2 years. Can be varied on the application of any party
This order allows DCP to supervise the wellbeing of the child while the child remains a parent/s responsibility. The child is not in the CEO’s care. The order may contain conditions to be followed by the child, a parent, or an adult with whom the child is living
Protection Order (time limited)
Up to 2 years. Can be extended more than once on application by DCP for periods of not more than 2 years. This order can be revoked on parents’ application
This order gives the CEO parental responsibility for the child for the period stated. The child can be returned to parents’ care while the order is current if DCP think the child will be safe.
Protection Order (until 18) Until the child’s 18th birthday. Parents can apply to have this order revoked
This order gives the CEO parental responsibility for the child until he/ or she reaches the age of 18. Can only be made when the court is satisfied that long-term arrangements should be made for the wellbeing of the child. The child can be returned to a parent’s care while the Order is current if DCP think the child will be safe.
Protection Order (enduring parental responsibility)
Until the child’s 18th
birthday. DCP must apply Parents can apply to have order revoked
This order gives parental responsibility of the child to any person or two people jointly other than the CEO or a parent of the child. The child is not in the care of the CEO. The order may include conditions about contact
285
between the child and another person, such as the parent/s. Conditions can be changed, added or replaced. The court may order the CEO to make payments to the enduring parental carer.
286
APPENDIX B
Flowchart of court process for contested cases in the Children's Court
Adapted from Family Inclusion Network of Western Australia, Finding Your Way
with DCP (2009:22–23)
287
APPENDIX C Flowchart of court process for consented cases in the Children's Court Adapted from Family Inclusion Network of Western Australia, Finding Your Way with DCP (2009: 22-23)
288
APPENDIX D Overview of Child Protection process in Australia
Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2010) Child protection
Australia 2008–09, Child Welfare Series, Number 47, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare, Canberra.
289
APPENDIX E Information Sheet
Social Work and Social Policy School of Social and Cultural Studies The University of Western Australia
BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING A HOLISTIC OUTCOME FOR PARENTS INVOLVED IN CARE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CHILDREN’S COURT CONTEXT.
You are invited to participate in a research study that will explore the therapeutic and non-therapeutic elements that exist in the protection and care proceeding process in the Children’s Court context. I am interested in your overall impressions of what you think is occurring in the courtroom, and what your perceptions are of the impact of child protection legal proceedings on parents. To do this, I will be considering the explicit and implicit therapeutic elements that exist in the protection and care proceeding process. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because of your professional or personal involvement in a protection and care proceeding matter in the Perth Children’s Court. Purpose of the study There has been little investigation into the experience of parents involved in protection and care proceedings in the Children’s Court in the Australian context. The significance of this investigation is that it will happen at a time when major challenges are being articulated about how we manage child protection and child welfare decision-making in Australia. The purpose of this study is to explore aspects of the protection and care proceeding process that are either conducive or non-conducive to a therapeutic effect. This could include factors like the court process and difficulties faced by parents in protection and care proceedings, or explicit and implicit factors that influence court outcomes. The purpose is to gain a better understanding of how the Children’s Court can promote strengths and skills in parents, and promote family healing. Who is the researcher? The primary researcher is Alana Thompson, MSW, a PhD student from the Discipline of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of Western Australia.
290
What is being asked of participants? If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things: Participate in an interview, which should take around 45 minutes. If there is more to say, a second interview can be scheduled. Interviews will take place at the location and time of your choosing, in agreement with the researcher. With your permission, interviews will be audiotaped. The interviews with the researcher will be conversational in style. The interviewer will ask you about your experience of being involved in a protection and care proceeding matter. This study does not directly involve children. However, parents are invited to advise their child/children of their involvement in this study if they so wish. How will your privacy be protected? All information provided by you will be treated as confidential by the researcher. At the beginning of this study, your name will be replaced by a code number so that your privacy is protected. With your permission, your interview will be audiotaped, then transcribed. Tape recording will be done so that the researcher can participate fully while you are being interviewed. It is also being done to accurately recall what you say for later analysis. You have the right to stop the recording at any time. After the interview, you also have the right to listen to the recording, review the transcript, and indicate if there are portions of the interview that you want to have deleted. When your audiotape is transcribed, and the content of all of the interviews is brought together to determine the results, this code number will be used. The audiotapes and any written notes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at the University of Western Australia for a legally required number of years, and then destroyed. The researcher will be the only person with access to this information. You will not be identified in any reports or published articles that result from this research. Voluntary participation and your right to refuse Your involvement in this study is voluntary. You can decide whether or not to take part in this research. No one, including the Judge, will be informed whether you were interviewed or not. If you do volunteer to be in this study, you can also change your mind and withdraw your consent at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. If your participation raises any concerns or issues that you wish to discuss further, the researcher can link you with an appropriate health care professional. You may also end the interview at any time if you are uncomfortable continuing.
291
Payment for participation No payment will be provided for your participation. Whom can you contact if you have a question about this study? If you would like to discuss any aspect of this study, please feel free to contact the Principal Researcher, Alana Thompson, MSW, on (08) 6488 2990 or the Principal Supervisor, Dr Maria Harries, on (08) 6488 2993. Who has given permission for this study to proceed? The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia has given ethics approval for this research.
Thank you for taking the time to read this Information Sheet
292
APPENDIX F
Participant Consent Form
Social Work and Social Policy School of Social and
BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING A HOLISTIC OUTCOME FOR PARENTS INVOLVED IN CARE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CHILDREN’S COURT CONTEXT.
Consent form for Judges/Magistrates, Legal Representatives, Court staff and Parents involved in care
proceedings in the Perth Children’s Court.
I, _________________________________________________________________________
(Given Names) (Surname) have read the information sheet explaining the study entitled ‘Barriers to achieving a holistic outcome for parents involved in care proceedings in the Children’s Court context’. I have read and understood the information given to me. Any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I fully understand the purpose, extent and possible effects of my involvement. I understand that any report that will be published as a result of this study will not name or lead to the identification of any person involved in care proceeding matters in the Perth Children’s Court. I understand this research study is in accordance with the following regulations: The Young Offenders Act 1994 – Section 17, Confidentiality
(1) “Except as provided in this section, a person who directly or indirectly divulges any personal information obtained by reason of any function that person has, or at any time had, in the administration of this Act or any provision repealed by this Act commits an offence”. (d) “In a manner that could not reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of any person to whom the information relates”
The Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 – Section 35, Restrictions on Reports of Proceedings
“A person shall not publish or cause to be published in any newspaper or other publication or broadcast or cause to be broadcast by radio or television a report of any proceedings in the
293
Court, or in any other court on appeal from the Court, containing any particulars or other matter likely to lead to the identification of a child who is concerned in those proceedings”
I understand that: I may withdraw from the research at any time without explanation I will receive a copy of this consent form All information provided will be treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the researcher unless required to by law.
I agree that research data gathered from the results of this study may be used for a published report, provided that no identifying data or names are used. Signature ______________________________________ Date ______________________ I, _____________________________________________________have explained the above
(Researcher’s full name) to the signatory who stated that he/she understood the same. Signature ________________________________________________ The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone (08) 6488-3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.
294
APPENDIX G Email requesting interview with magistrates
295
APPENDIX H Interview Framework — Magistrates, Lawyers and Court Staff
INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK
MAGISTRATES, LAWYERS AND COURT STAFF
Therapeutic jurisprudence is an approach to examining legal issues, the involvement of
legal systems and the impact of legal processes upon participant wellbeing. This
research will seek to broadly investigate how a therapeutic jurisprudence approach can
be understood and applied to the protection and care jurisdiction of the Children’s
Court.
This will be done by examining the effects of the therapeutic and non-therapeutic
elements of the legal process on the parents and families involved in these proceedings,
and by considering how existing laws and practices can be most therapeutically applied
within the Children’s Court. The ways in which court spaces can be designed to
empower and promote wellbeing in parents and families will also be examined.
The proposed study seeks to answer the following research questions:
How can existing laws, practices and procedures in the protection and care jurisdiction
of the Children’s Court be most therapeutically applied?
I will address this primary question by answering the following two secondary research
questions:
i) What do the experiences of people involved in protection and care
proceedings say about how therapeutic jurisprudence is operating in the
Children’s Court?
296
ii) How can the Children’s Court be designed to empower and promote
wellbeing in court participants who are either personally or professionally
involved in its proceedings? In relation to the Court process/system 1. Your overall impressions about how parents’ experience the court process. 2. Your impressions of the (morning) mention list process. 3. Your overall impressions of the pre-hearing conference process. 4. Do you have any expectations about the purpose of the pre-hearing conference? 5. Do you see the conference as a management tool or an opportunity for mediation? 6. What do you see as the parents’ role in the pre-hearing conference? 7. Your overall impressions of the trial process. 8. Your impressions about how parents experience the trial process. 9. Your impressions about the availability and/or access to legal aid in the court. 10.Your impressions about how parents manage the trial process if self-represented. 11.Your impressions of the workings the new legislation (Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). 12.Your thoughts on how the new legislation may/may not impact on parents’ experience of the court process. 13.What are your impressions about the language used in the Children’s Court? 14.What are your thoughts on the supports parents need to navigate through the child protection legal process? In relation to the Children’s Court spaces 1. Your overall impressions of the layout and design of the Children’s Court building. 2. Specifically, your impressions of the courtrooms, pre-hearing conference room and waiting room areas. 3. Your impressions of how parents and families would experience the physical layout and design of the Children’s Court. 4. Thoughts on how the spaces of the Children’s Court can be designed to empower and promote the wellbeing of parents and families involved in protection proceedings. (Other) 1. What changes if any do you think the Children’s Court can make in order to better assist parents in the future? 2. Any other suggestions for change?
297
APPENDIX I
Interview Framework — Parents and Families
INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK
PARENTS AND FAMILIES
Therapeutic jurisprudence is an approach to examining legal issues, the involvement of legal systems and the impact of legal processes upon participant wellbeing. This research will seek to broadly investigate how a therapeutic jurisprudence framework can be understood and applied to the protection and care proceeding process in the Children’s Court context. This will be done by examining the effects of the therapeutic and non-therapeutic elements of the legal process on the parents and families involved in these proceedings, and by considering how existing laws and practices can be most therapeutically applied within the Children’s Court jurisdiction. The ways in which Court spaces can be designed to empower and promote wellbeing of parents and families also will be examined. The proposed study seeks to answer the following research questions: How can existing laws, practices and procedures in the protection and care jurisdiction of the Children’s Court be most therapeutically applied? I will address this primary question by answering the following two secondary research questions:
i) What do the experiences of people involved in protection and care
proceedings say about how therapeutic jurisprudence is operating in the
Children’s Court?
ii) How can the Children’s Court be designed to empower and promote
wellbeing in court participants who are either personally or professionally
involved in its proceedings?
298
In relation to the Court system / process 1. Your impressions about how parents experience the Court process. 2. Your overall impressions of the (morning) mention list process. 3. Your overall impressions of the Pre-hearing conference process. 4. Your overall impressions of the trial process. 5. Your overall impressions about the availability and/or access to legal aid in the Children’s Court. 6. What are your impressions about the language used in the Children’s Court? 7. What are your thoughts on the supports parents need to navigate through the Children’s Court legal process?
In relation to Court spaces 1. Can you tell me about your overall impressions of the layout and design of the Children’s Court building? 2. Can you tell me about your overall impressions of the layout and design of the courtrooms, pre-hearing conference room and waiting room areas? 3. Do you have any thoughts on how such spaces may be more functional for parents and families?
(Other) 1. What changes if any do you think the Children’s Court can make in order to better assist parents in the future? 2. Any other suggestions for change?
299
APPENDIX J Human Subjects Research Ethics Approval Form
Email: [email protected] Our Ref. RA/4/1/1810 25 June 2007 Associate Professor M Harries Social Work and Social Policy — M256 University of Western Australia HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE Project: Barriers to achieving a holistic outcome
for parents involved in care proceedings in the children's Court context
Student: Alana Thompson - PhD - 20123461 Please be advised that ethical approval of the above project has been granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee. This project is approved on condition that the negotiated versions of the recruitment process and consent forms are submitted for final review and approval by the HREC before implementation. The Committee is bound by NHMRC Guidelines to monitor the progress of all approved projects until completion to ensure that they continue to conform to approved ethical standards.
The committee requires that all Chief Investigators report immediately anything that might affect or impact upon ethical approval of the project, including adverse events affecting subjects. Approval should be sought in writing in advance for any amendments to the original application. You are also required as a condition of this approval to inform the Committee if for any reason the research project is discontinued before the expected date of completion. A report form for completion will be sent to you twelve months from this date or one month after your indicated completion date. Please note that approval has been granted for a period of four years. Initial
300
approval is for a period of one year, and, thereafter for future periods of one year at a time subject to the receipt of satisfactory annual reports. At the end of the four-year period you will be required to complete a new "Application to Undertake Research Involving Human Subjects" should you wish to continue with your research. However, in special circumstances, the Chair has the authority to extend the approval period in order to complete a project. Failure to submit a final report may result in delays for future applications. Please quote Project No RA/4/1/1810 all correspondence associated with this study. Yours sincerely KATE KIRK
Executive Officer (Human Research Ethics Committee)
301
APPENDIX K Overview of process for child protection notification in Western Australia
The following is an overview of the Department for Child Protection (DCP) process on
receiving a notification of suspected abuse or harm. Child protection is a program
funded and delivered by DCP. The program is divided into metropolitan services
including eight districts (Cannington, Fremantle, Joondalup, Midland, Mirrabooka,
Perth and Rockingham) and country services that include nine districts (East
Kimberley, Goldfields, Great Southern, Murchison, Peel, Pilbara, South West, West
Kimberley and the Wheatbelt). An after-hours Emergency Child Protection Service
(Crisis Care) also operates within the program.
While any person can voluntarily make a report to DCP, mandatory reporters such as
medical practitioners, nurses, midwives, teachers, Western Australian police officers
are obligated to make reports to DCP. The Children and Community Services Act 2004
(WA) requires such professionals to make reports to DCP when in the course of their
employment they form a belief on reasonable grounds, that a child has been abused or
is the subject of ongoing abuse.
An investigation of any report made to DCP may lead to the making of a Protection
Application to the Children’s Court because DCP has determined that a child is in need
of protection. The Children’s Court can issue a range of protection orders. Some
protection orders transfer the custody or guardianship of children from the parent to
DCP, while others allow DCP to monitor children who remain in their parents’ care.
302
APPENDIX L
Email requesting interview with lawyers and court staff
Social Work and Social Policy
School of Social and Cultural Studies The University of Western Australia
Dear Mr Johnson, My name is Alana Thompson and I am doing research for a doctoral thesis at the University of Western Australia. I commenced court observations of protection and care proceedings at the Perth Children's Court three months ago, and recently commenced the interview component of my research. I am seeking to interview lawyers and court staff who work within the protection and care jurisdiction of the Children's Court. What I would like to ask is whether you would be interested and available to participate in an interview that would take approximately 40–60 minutes to complete. I am happy to fit in with your schedule and meet at a location that is most convenient to you. I am attaching an Information Sheet to this email that outlines the background and purpose of this research. I would very much appreciate your assistance with this. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Alana Thompson
303
APPENDIX M Factors to be considered in determining 'the best interests of the child' (WA) Source: Ford, P 2007, Review of the Department for Community Development: Review Report, Available from: http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au.[20 September 2009].