21. Family Dispute Resolution

Transcription

1 21. Family Dispute Resolution Contents Introduction 983 Family Dispute Resolution 985 Development of family dispute resolution 986 FDR in family law legislation 987 FDR and parenting orders 987 FDR and financial disputes 988 FDR and the Family Law Act generally 988 Definition of family violence 989 FDR in cases involving family violence 990 Screening and risk assessment practices 998 FDR practitioners and screening 998 Screening frameworks 999 Lawyers as effective referral agents 1003 FDR practitioners and lawyers 1008 Culturally responsive FDR 1013 Introduction 21.1 Disputes of all types are increasingly dealt with by methods of dispute resolution that do not involve a decision by a court or tribunal and instead involve different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) models. Part F of this Report examines the use of ADR processes 1 in disputes involving family violence processes that operate within or alongside family law, child protection law and family violence law, and which affect the operation of the legal frameworks that are the subject of this Inquiry ADR and restorative justice share common origins and philosophies as part of a move away from traditional legal processes and towards new forms of conflict resolution. However, ADR and restorative justice have developed as distinct areas of practice. ADR focuses on managing disputes in a collaborative way, whereas restorative justice is concerned with reparation and dialogue between offenders and victims. 2 1 The term ADR is used here to include family dispute resolution (FDR) the ADR model used to resolve disputes under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as well as ADR models used to resolve child protection matters and matters arising under family violence legislation. 2 See L McCrimmon and M Lewis, The Role of ADR Processes in the Criminal Justice System: A View (Paper presented at Association of Law Reform Agencies for Eastern and Southern Africa, Entebbe,

2 984 Family Violence A National Legal Response 21.3 The use of ADR and restorative justice is controversial in disputes involving violence and abuse. 3 With respect to ADR, a major concern is that processes for dispute resolution are based on negotiations between parties and consensual agreements. In the context of family violence, the power relationships between the parties may make this dangerous or produce unfair or unsafe agreements As discussed in Chapter 23, the Commissions consider that negotiation or mediation about violence itself is never appropriate. Having considered research findings and stakeholder comments throughout this Inquiry, the Commissions have concluded that, where there is family violence, ADR to resolve issues other than violence may be appropriate, depending on effective and reliable family violence screening, risk assessment and risk management. In Part F of this Report, the Commissions consider the need for reforms in legislation, policy and practice to provide for the safety of parties during ADR, and to facilitate safe and effective outcomes through ADR in disputes involving family violence In this chapter, the Commissions consider the use of family dispute resolution (FDR) 4 to resolve parenting disputes involving family violence. The Commissions examine the family law framework for FDR, with particular consideration of screening and risk assessment practices, cooperation and collaboration between FDR practitioners and lawyers, and the development of culturally responsive FDR In Chapter 22, the Commissions consider the disclosure of information and admissibility of evidence arising from FDR and family counselling communications. This involves balancing different considerations: agencies and courts need for information and evidence to protect victims or those at risk of family violence, and the need to maintain the integrity and ability of FDR and family counselling processes to secure safe outcomes for victims and those at risk in the context of family law disputes In Chapter 23, the Commissions consider the use of ADR processes in family violence, family law and child protection matters, and the inconsistencies in practice and outcomes arising from the gaps between these jurisdictions. In doing so, the Commissions note that legislative, policy and operational distinctions between family violence, family law and child protection issues do not always reflect the actual experience of families affected by family violence, for whom these issues often intersect. This leads the Commissions to consider the potential for ADR to overcome jurisdictional divides to offer seamless and effective resolution of intersecting issues in disputes involving family violence Australian governments and others have expressed strong support for greater use of ADR to resolve family law and child protection disputes. 5 As discussed in Part F of Uganda, 6 September 2005). See also Law Reform Committee Parliament of Victoria, Inquiry into Alternative Dispute Resolution and Restorative Justice (2009), Restorative justice in relation to family violence and sexual assault is considered briefly in Ch The term family dispute resolution or FDR refers to ADR as it is used to resolve disputes in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). See the definition of family dispute resolution in s 10F of the Act. 5 See for example, R McClelland (Attorney-General), Improving Access to Justice (Press Release, 17 May 2010); Australian Government Attorney-General s Department Access to Justice Taskforce, A Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System (2009); J Wood, Report of

3 21. Family Dispute Resolution 985 this Report, much work has been done in recent years to develop ADR processes that have the flexibility to accommodate the personal and cultural needs, concerns, values and interests of particular children and their families, as well as providing appropriate safeguards to protect victims of family violence and those at risk of family violence. In this regard, the Commissions note the funding, development, implementation and other support of important strategies and initiatives by government, dispute resolution service providers, lawyers and other professionals in the fields of family law, child protection and family violence. As Part F of this Report indicates however, there is still important work to do to improve law and practice relating to the use of ADR in cases involving family violence. Family Dispute Resolution 21.9 This chapter considers the role of FDR in resolving family law disputes in particular parenting disputes and the interaction between FDR processes under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and family violence The use of FDR in the context of family violence presents complex challenges. In addition to significant concern about the safety of participants engaging in FDR where family violence is present, there is concern that imbalances in power relationships between the parties may compromise the fairness of the negotiating process and result in unfair and unsafe agreements However, the capacity of FDR to provide flexible and accessible resolution processes to accommodate the particular needs, interests and concerns of diverse parties especially where parties are victims or are at risk of family violence contributes significantly to the possibility of achieving sustainable and effective outcomes As the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) found in its Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms, there is evidence that some families with family violence issues are on the roundabout between services which provide ADR in the family law system, lawyers, courts and state-based child protection and family violence systems. 6 AIFS has also noted in relation to parenting arrangements, that the evidence of poorer well-being for children whose mothers have safety concerns... highlights the importance of identifying families where safety concerns are pertinent and assisting them to make arrangements that promote the well-being of their children The Commissions consider that the potential for FDR to expeditiously and effectively resolve parenting disputes in cases involving family violence through practical and sustainable agreements, and with appropriate screening, risk assessment the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW (2008);J Hatzistergos (New South Wales Attorney General), Nowra Elders to Help Aboriginal Children at Risk (Press Release, 22 September 2010); J Hatzistergos (New South Wales Attorney General), Keynote Address (Paper presented at ADR Workshop of New South Wales Bar Association, Sydney, 28 August 2010). 6 Australian Institute of Family Studies, Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms (2009), E2. 7 Ibid, E4 E5.

4 986 Family Violence A National Legal Response and risk management may help to circumvent the development or escalation of related child protection and family violence concerns In this chapter, the Commissions examine the way in which the legislative, policy and operational framework for FDR addresses family violence concerns. In particular, the Commissions consider screening and risk assessment practices, referral practices, cooperation and collaboration between FDR practitioners and lawyers, and the development of culturally responsive FDR, and make recommendations to improve FDR processes, standards and practice. Such improvements in processes, standards and practice will enhance FDR s capacity to deliver sustainable and effective outcomes and, in so doing, may assist in circumventing repeated engagement by family violence victims and those at risk with the legal system. Development of family dispute resolution FDR is defined broadly in the Family Law Act as any non-judicial process where an independent FDR practitioner helps people affected, or likely to be affected, by separation or divorce, to resolve some or all of their disputes with each other. 8 Dispute resolution processes include mediation, conciliation and arbitration. In mediation, an impartial third party assists parties to negotiate an agreement. Conciliation is similar to mediation, except the conciliator may provide expert advice on possible legal outcomes and have an advisory role. In arbitration, an independent third party assesses the facts and determines the dispute according to law. 9 In practice, mediation is the key process used for Australian family disputes. 10 However, FDR services and agencies vary in their approaches and underlying philosophies. 11 In addition to family dispute resolution, many agencies also provide counselling, parenting support and other services When the Family Court of Australia was established in 1976, it used counselling and conciliation. Since that time, FDR has expanded and developed extensively. FDR services are now provided by courts, legal aid commissions, 12 community agencies and private providers. Most recently, the federal government has established a network of Family Relationships Centres (FRCs) throughout Australia that provide referral and FDR services. 13 Practitioners have developed increasingly sophisticated approaches 8 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 10F. 9 Family Law Council and Law Council of Australia Family Law Section, Best Practice Guidelines for Lawyers Doing Family Law Work (2004). 10 D Cooper and R Field, Family Dispute Resolution of Parenting Matters in Australia: An Analysis of the Notion of an Independent Practitioner (2008) 8 Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 158, Ibid, , discusses different models of mediation. 12 Legal Aid Commissions are required to consider whether a matter can be dealt with by dispute resolution before a grant of legal aid for family law matters can be made. If a matter is considered appropriate for dispute resolution, a grant of assistance will be made for a conference where the lawyer will represent the assisted party. The conferences are chaired by trained and qualified FDR practitioners. See KPMG, Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions: Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, P Parkinson, Keeping Contact: The Role of Family Relationship Centres in Australia (2006) 18 Child and Family Law Quarterly 157.

5 21. Family Dispute Resolution 987 and strategies for assessing the appropriateness of FDR in differing situations, addressing power imbalances, and including children in their practices FDR is presently governed by a detailed legislative framework under the Family Law Act and associated regulations, discussed in more detail below. Broadly speaking, the current legislative framework encourages or requires the use of FDR before court action and supports referral to FDR after an application to the court has been made. Exceptions are provided in cases of family violence and child abuse, reflecting concerns, discussed below, about the use of FDR in such contexts. Communications during the FDR process are, in general, confidential and inadmissible in subsequent court proceedings, although there are exceptions relevant to child abuse and family violence. 15 FDR in family law legislation This section sets out the legislative provisions regulating the use of FDR in the Family Law Act. Different regimes apply to FDR in relation to parenting orders and financial disputes. There are also some general provisions in the Family Law Act that govern FDR. FDR and parenting orders The 2006 reforms to the Family Law Act extended the use of FDR. With some exceptions, parties with a dispute about children must go to FDR before they can go to court, 16 and must make a genuine effort to resolve their dispute through FDR. 17 The exceptions to this requirement include where the parties agree and are applying to court only for a consent order. 18 Importantly, they also include cases where violence is an issue, such as where the court is satisfied that there has been, or there is a risk of, child abuse or family violence, 19 or where there are circumstances of urgency If the parties do not reach agreement through FDR and do not satisfy one of the exceptions, the federal family courts can only hear parenting cases if the FDR practitioner provides a certificate relating to the parties attendance and effort in the FDR process. 21 FDR practitioners may give several different types of certificates under s 60I of the Family Law Act, including a certificate to the effect that the person did not 14 Australian Institute of Family Studies, Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms: Summary Report (2009), See further below. The confidentiality and inadmissibility of FDR communications are discussed in Ch Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60I. 17 Ibid s 60I(1). For a discussion of genuine effort in s 60I, its meaning and the implications of the provision in cases of violence, see H Astor, Making a Genuine Effort in Family Mediation: What Does It Mean? (2008) 22 Australian Journal of Family Law Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60I(9)(a). 19 Ibid s 60I(9)(b). 20 Ibid s 60I(9)(d). Other circumstances include: where orders are applied for in response to other applications; where there has been serious disregard of previous family law orders; where parties are unable to participate effectively in FDR; and where other circumstances specified in the regulations are satisfied. No other circumstances are presently prescribed by the regulations. 21 Ibid s 60I(7).

6 988 Family Violence A National Legal Response attend FDR because, having regard to the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (the FDR Regulations), the practitioner considers that it would not be appropriate to conduct or continue FDR In determining whether a dispute is appropriate for FDR, the FDR practitioner must take into account whether the ability of any party to negotiate freely is affected by a number of factors, all of which are potentially relevant to cases of violence. These include: any history of family violence among the parties; the likely safety of the parties; the equality of bargaining power among the parties; the risk that a child may suffer abuse; the emotional, psychological and physical health of the parties; or any other relevant matter. 23 The FDR Regulations also require that an FDR practitioner must be satisfied of the appropriateness of FDR in each case before providing FDR. 24 An FDR practitioner is also obliged to terminate FDR if the practitioner is no longer satisfied it is appropriate, or is requested to do so by a party. 25 FDR and financial disputes The s 60I framework applies only to parenting orders. In relation to applications for financial disputes, the requirements are set out in the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). 26 Consistently with s 60I, the Rules include mechanisms for removing obligations to participate in FDR in cases of family violence This is done in two ways. First, the Rules require compliance with pre-action procedures set out in sch 1, but there is an exception for cases of allegations of family violence or the risk of family violence or fraud. 27 Secondly, while the procedures in sch 1 generally require the use of FDR, the Rules set out circumstances including allegations of family violence or cases of urgency in which the court may accept that it was not possible or appropriate for a party to comply with the pre-action procedures. 28 FDR and the Family Law Act generally Other provisions of the Family Law Act also deal with FDR, including provisions encouraging its use. Section 13C empowers the court to make orders referring parties to FDR or family counselling at any stage in proceedings, on its own 22 Ibid s 60I(8)(aa),(d). The other grounds upon which certificates may be issued are: a party did not attend FDR due to the refusal or failure of the other party (or parties) to attend: s 60I(8)(a); the parties attended FDR with the practitioner, and all parties made a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues: s 60I(8)(b); the party attended FDR with the practitioner, but that party, or another party did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues: s 60I(8)(c). 23 Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) reg 25(2). 24 Ibid reg 25(1), (4). 25 Ibid reg 29(c). 26 In May 2010, the Attorney-General of Australia announced an intention to extend the requirement to attend FDR prior to filing an application in court to property and spousal maintenance matters, as one of a range of measures consistent with the Federal Government s Strategic Framework for Access to Justice: R McClelland (Attorney-General), Improving Access to Justice (Press Release, 17 May 2010). 27 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r Ibid sch 1, cl 1(1),(4).

7 21. Family Dispute Resolution 989 initiative or on application by a party or an independent children s lawyer. 29 If a party does not comply with such an order, the court may make further orders as it considers appropriate following a report from an FDR practitioner or counsellor. 30 Section 62B obliges a court to inform parties in a parenting proceeding about FDR and family counselling services. Section 69ZQ requires a court in child-related proceedings to encourage the use of FDR, where it considers it appropriate. A requirement to attend FDR may also be imposed as a condition of a bond where parenting orders are contravened. 31 Definition of family violence The definition of family violence in s 4 of the Family Law Act, and proposals to amend the definition, are discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of this Report. As discussed there, the definition is more restrictive than that used in some state or territory family violence legislation, and in practice-based material such as the Screening and Risk Assessment Framework, 32 and in the Family Court of Australia s Family Violence Strategy. 33 Concern has been expressed that the definitional differences may create problems in practice. 34 A KPMG evaluation of FDR practices in the legal aid sector found that screening questions tended to focus on physical forms of abuse, 35 and recommended enhanced screening for non-physical forms of violence In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions therefore asked whether the variations between the legislative definitions and practice-based definitions in FDR have had any practical impact in FDR practices The responses to this question focused on the definition of violence in the Family Law Act, identifying its narrowness and the requirement of reasonableness as problematic. 38 Very few responses linked the definition with problems in FDR practice. 29 The court is required to consider seeking the advice of a family consultant before making such an order. 30 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 13D. 31 Ibid ss 70NEC, 70NFE. 32 Australian Catholic University and Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (2008), 52, notes the definition in the Family Law Act and other definitions. 33 Family Court of Australia, Family Violence Strategy ( ), R Kaspiew, Family Violence in Children s Cases under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Past Practice and Future Challenges (2008) 14 Journal of Family Studies 279, KPMG, Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions: Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, Ibid. Measures taken by the Legal Aid Commissions to address this and other concerns raised by KPMG are discussed below. 37 Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks, ALRC Consultation Paper 1, NSWLRC Consultation Paper 9 (2010), Question 11 2, [11.61]. 38 Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Women s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010.

8 990 Family Violence A National Legal Response One submission asserted that the definition in the Family Law Act is narrow and does not include many of the dynamics of power and control. These dynamics may impact on capacity to negotiate, but not constitute violence under the Act, and the capacity of FDR to deal with such problems depends on the skill of the practitioner. 39 The Queensland Law Society expressed concerns that FDR practitioners sometimes excluded parties from FDR because of concerns that did not meet the definition in the Act In Chapter 6, the Commissions express the view that the definition of family violence in the Family Law Act should expressly recognise that certain types of nonphysical conduct including economic abuse and psychological abuse may fall within the wider definition of family violence. The Commissions recommend that family violence should be given a definition that describes the context in which acts take place, and that it should be defined as violent or threatening behaviour, or any other form of behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes that family member to be fearful. 41 The Commissions also express the view that the semi-objective test of reasonableness should be removed from the definition of family violence in the Family Law Act on the basis that it is inappropriate to apply a test of reasonableness to the experience of fear in determining whether conduct is violent. The Commissions do not, however, make a separate recommendation about the removal of the reasonableness test from the definition of family violence in the Family Law Act, as the Commissions recommended definition does not include the test of reasonableness In the Commissions view, this recommended definition will assist in educating those engaged in the family law system about the complexities and nuances of family violence. It will also deal with the concerns about the definition described above and the problems it may create in relation to FDR. Consequently, the Commissions make no further recommendation in this respect FDR in cases involving family violence Both practitioners and scholars have expressed concerns about using facilitative methods of FDR in cases involving family violence. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) explored these concerns in its 2005 report, Community Justice Centres, 42 where it expressed its concern about mediation taking place where violence is a factor, particularly in situations involving domestic violence Women s Legal Centre (ACT & Region) Inc, Submission FV 175, 25 June Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June Rec 6 4. The Commissions recommend the same core definition of family violence for family violence legislation and the Family Law Act see Rec New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Community Justice Centres, Report 106 (2005), Ch Ibid, [4.41].

9 21. Family Dispute Resolution The reasons why FDR may be inappropriate in the context of family violence include: safety concerns the FDR process may place women and children in danger because the offender may use FDR as an opportunity for violence or intimidation; power imbalances the sometimes extreme imbalance of power in relationships characterised by family violence undermines the fairness of the negotiating process in facilitative methods of FDR; mediation requires honesty, desire to settle the dispute and some capacity for compromise perpetrators of violence are not generally capable of such behaviours in relation to the target of their violence; mediation places too great a burden on the woman who has been the victim of violence, and who may, for example, be afraid to be in the same room with the perpetrator; and FDR is a private and confidential process, with the effect that violence against women is shielded from the public eye Other concerns include the difficulty of identifying violence. It has been suggested that it is very difficult for the victims of violence to reveal violence, and that those who commit violence are also unwilling to do so. 45 FDR may therefore take place in the absence of crucial information and there may be ongoing impacts on parties and their children. 46 Another issue is whether FDR is effective in situations of family violence. Some research indicates that mediation will not produce agreements or, if it does, the agreements will not be successful in many cases On the other hand, there are potential benefits of using FDR in cases involving family violence. The first is that FDR may be a more accessible method of resolving family disputes, as it is arguably both cheaper and faster than going to court. 48 FRCs in Australia provide three hours of mediation without charge and many other services have affordable fee levels. 44 For a review of these issues see: R Field, Using the Feminist Critique of Mediation to Explore the Good, the Bad and the Ugly Implications for Women of the Introduction of Mandatory Family Dispute Resolution in Australia (2006) 20 Australian Journal of Family Law 45; H Astor, Violence and Family Mediation: Policy (1994) 8 Australian Journal of Family Law H Astor, The Weight of Silence: Talking About Violence in Family Mediation in M Thornton (ed) Public and Private: Feminist Debates (1995) D Kirkwood and M McKenzie, Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence in the Family Law System (2009) 14 Current Family Law 149, ; M Kaye, J Stubbs and J Tolmie, Domestic Violence and Child Contact Arrangements (2003) 17 Australian Journal of Family Law Australian Institute of Family Studies, Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms (2009), 102; A Bailey and A Bickerdike, Family Violence and Family Mediation (2005) Autumn Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter 13, Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence, Discussion Paper No 6 (2007), 22.

10 992 Family Violence A National Legal Response Secondly, if FDR is conducted by an experienced practitioner with appropriate safeguards, it may have positive outcomes for people who have experienced family violence. 49 Some studies of FDR have identified high rates of participant satisfaction where there are well trained, problem solving FDR service providers with effective intake processes. 50 FDR may offer the parties more involvement in resolving their dispute, and may give victims more opportunity to speak about matters which are important to them Governments and service providers have devoted resources to training and development of FDR practitioners in the area of family violence. FDR practitioners must be accredited and the relevant Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution includes compulsory units dealing with violence and providing for the safety of vulnerable parties. 52 There has also been investment in research and policy development on FDR and violence. 53 As discussed below, a screening and risk assessment framework for cases involving violence and abuse has been developed. 54 Models of FDR are being developed that include lawyers in the process, with particular relevance to disputes involving violence The risks associated with family violence in FDR processes may be managed in a number of ways. Some examples include: ensuring that victims are prepared for the process; 56 taking practical measures to ensure safety, such as obtaining a silent phone number; 57 taking care with client contact, for example by making written material only available at the centre and not leaving phone messages; Ibid, Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) reg 5. In addition, the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department noted the availability of alternative pathways to accreditation, that do not involve the vocational graduate diploma: Australian Government Attorney- General s Department, Submission FV 166, 25 June As reflected in Rec 21 2, the Commissions consider that high quality family violence screening and risk assessment tools should be included in all training and accreditation for family dispute resolution practitioners. 53 Keys Young, Research/Evaluation of Family Mediation Practice and the Issue of Violence: Final Report (1996), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department; H Astor, Position Paper on Mediation [prepared for the] National Committee on Violence Against Women (1991), Office of the Status of Women. 54 Australian Catholic University and Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (2008). 55 R Field, A Feminist Model of Mediation That Centralises the Role of Lawyers as Advocates for Participants who are Victims of Domestic Violence (2004) 20 Australian Feminist Law Journal Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence, Discussion Paper No 6 (2007), Ibid, Keys Young, Research/Evaluation of Family Mediation Practice and the Issue of Violence: Final Report (1996), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, 39.

11 21. Family Dispute Resolution 993 minimising contact between clients on the day, by using separate waiting rooms and exits for clients, and staggered arrival and departure times; 59 allowing the presence of support persons; 60 continuously assessing clients comfort levels and emotional state; 61 using shuttle mediation, where parties sit in different rooms and the mediator shuttles between them; co-mediation with a male and a female mediator; 62 using multiple short mediation sessions to reduce stress and the impact of contact with the perpetrator; 63 and private follow-ups with each party between sessions. 64 Some of these measures may be included in a safety plan designed for the needs of an individual client While there is a range of views on the appropriateness of FDR in family violence contexts, a degree of consensus exists on certain matters. First, using FDR in cases involving family violence carries particular risks. Secondly, if family violence is to be dealt with in FDR processes, it must be handled by skilled and knowledgeable FDR practitioners using appropriate safeguards. Thirdly, in practice, some cases involving family violence do and will continue to proceed to mediation The AIFS Evaluation shows that FDR is attempted more frequently in cases involving violence than in those not involving violence. 66 It also appears that, for some clients, the risk posed by family violence is not identified and managed effectively. The AIFS evaluation cited the following response as an example: For me, there were not enough sessions in the process. I was so scared and intimidated by my ex-husband that I had trouble thinking clearly. As a consequence of this, I felt bulldozed into making an agreement. I also had to sit through a face-to-face session with my ex-husband before they d believe that I was worried about him I felt that my concerns were swept aside and the focus was on my ex-husband s needs/wants Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence, Discussion Paper No 6 (2007), KPMG, Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions: Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, 46; Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence, Discussion Paper No 6 (2007), Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence, Discussion Paper No 6 (2007), H Astor, Violence and Family Mediation: Policy (1994) 8 Australian Journal of Family Law 3, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms (2009), Cited in Ibid, 102.

12 994 Family Violence A National Legal Response In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether the provisions of the Family Law Act relating to FDR needed amendment to ensure that the victims of family violence are not inappropriately attempting or participating in family dispute resolution, and whether any other reforms may be necessary to ensure that the legislation operates effectively. In particular the Commissions asked if s 60I was operating appropriately. 68 Submissions and consultations Several submissions responding to this question expressed concerns that violence was not always properly identified and/or dealt with appropriately. This included failure to identify non physical forms of abuse, and failure to advise clients about exemptions from mandatory FDR for cases involving violence. 69 For example, the Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria (AFVPLS Victoria) provided two case histories of matters where AFVPLS Victoria had concerns that violence was not properly identified or the response was not appropriate. In one of these cases there was family violence of sufficient severity for a child protection agency to have been involved. Nevertheless, prior to the intervention of AFVPLS Victoria, FDR had been deemed appropriate and the client reported that the FDR practitioner had indicated that shared parenting was appropriate. In another case of violence where there was a no-contact order in force, the FDR agency proposed childinclusive FDR. The client was told they must proceed to FDR but not about the exemptions for cases involving violence. The AFVPLS Victoria put the FDR practitioner in touch with the child psychologist involved with the child and FDR was subsequently cancelled The Magistrates Court and the Children s Court of Victoria reported concerns expressed by some magistrates that they often see victims of violence who have agreed in mediation to contact arrangements that are not safe. 71 The Women s Legal Service, Queensland also expressed concern that victims of violence are not being excluded from FDR: many FDR practitioners lack the knowledge and skills to appropriately identify domestic violence and therefore appropriate exclude it; some FDR practitioners believe they can even out power imbalances; 68 Consultation Paper, Question The operation of s 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is considered in Ch National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Magistrates Court and the Children s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 109, 8 June 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August See also Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010, which commented that the accountability of practitioners in obtaining disclosure of family violence should also be considered. 70 Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June Magistrates Court and the Children s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010.

13 21. Family Dispute Resolution 995 some FDR practitioners believe that attempting FDR may be of benefit and cannot be harmful; some FDR practitioners know that the court will send the matter back for FDR even if a certificate is issued under s 60I that FDR is inappropriate; some victims of violence want to use FDR; some victims have no choice but to use FDR because they are ineligible for legal aid and do not want to represent themselves in court. 72 These factors indicate the complexity of the assessments that must be made in these cases and also indicate that FDR practitioners may be under pressure from courts and clients to use FDR in cases of violence Another pressure referred to was the limited availability of free mediation one stakeholder noted that the three hours of free mediation provided by Family Relationship Centres is not a realistic allocation for complex cases involving family violence Notwithstanding these concerns, several submissions expressed positive views of the abilities of FDR practitioners in relation to violence. Dr Olivia Rundle, of the University of Tasmania, pointed to the difficulties faced by the victims of violence when using other methods of resolving disputes and compared them with the advantages of FDR: FDR [practitioners] are trained specifically in working with people who have experienced family violence. They have an extensive tool box for assessing the appropriateness of FDR in such cases and adapting their service to protect and support clients. Many service providers are government funded and subject to stringent requirements around effective risk management and audits by government departments. It is submitted that the existing structures are adequate to protect against FDR being conducted inappropriately, to the extent that is possible Similarly, the submission of the Family Relationship Services Association (FRSA), the peak body for FDR and other family relationship services, detailed the extensive expertise, policies and practices developed by the FDR sector to deal with cases involving violence. 75 These include training, supervision of practitioners, accreditation involving knowledge of family violence, establishment of complaints processes, and development of specialist practitioners in family violence. 76 A submission from a consumer provided evidence of some of these measures in practice: It was good that I could insist on not having to be in the same room with him and that care was taken to have me come and go from the meetings while the perpetrator was supervised in another room. It was still terrifying. I was so keen to negotiate that I was 72 Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June O Rundle, Submission FV 50, 27 May Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July Ibid.

14 996 Family Violence A National Legal Response willing to risk a lot to do it. Now I know that he never, ever intended to negotiate and I went through hell trying to meet him half way The Family Issues Committee of the NSW Law Society submitted that in many respects the work done in FDR is very fine, appropriate, and producing excellent outcomes, while also noting that there are risks and some problems remaining in this sector The FRSA noted that there is considerable pressure on FDR practitioners dealing with violence, due to the rapid expansion of the network of 65 Family Relationship Centres, and the substantially expanded family and relationship services network. 79 The FRSA submitted that the sector is committed to improving standards through training (including a Graduate Diploma in FDR), supervision, increasing competency requirements concerning violence, and the development of expert practitioners in advisory and supervisory roles With respect to the question of what legislative amendments are necessary to ensure that victims of violence are not inappropriately attempting or participating in family dispute resolution, 81 a small number of submissions suggested legal solutions The changes suggested in submissions were overwhelmingly extra-legal. 83 The need for referrals to legal advice 84 and to specialist services for Indigenous clients in cases of family violence was raised. 85 Further training for FDR practitioners, and training for ongoing accreditation for all relevant professionals in the family law system was recommended in some submissions, including training about family violence dynamics and indicators, and family violence policy. 86 Training in how to conduct reliable and safe screening and risk assessment was also raised (screening and risk assessment is dealt with further below). 87 The need for collaboration between FDR 77 Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July Ibid. 81 Consultation Paper, Question There was support for reform of the friendly parent provisions of the Family Law Act: Women s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010; Women s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June In addition, Women s Legal Services, NSW supported reform of the false allegations provisions. 83 Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Women s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; O Rundle, Submission FV May National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010.

15 21. Family Dispute Resolution 997 practitioners and specialised domestic violence services in developing training and improved practice standards was also supported. The National Abuse Free Contact Campaign argued: There is a place for the Domestic Violence sector to be actively engaged in shared skills based on fifty years of feminist theory and practice, contributing to the development of tools for an appropriate and sensitive assessment. The training of family law professionals in screening and assessment tools should ideally be from those who are drawing on years of practice in identifying the more mundane and easier to miss forms of intimidation and manipulation. 88 Commissions views The Commissions note that there appears to be some inconsistency in standards in the FDR sector with respect to identifying family violence, assessing suitability for FDR and other aspects of screening and referral and FDR practice. While consultations and submissions detailed many experiences of good practice and supported the value of FDR, the persistence of problems in some parts of the sector was also revealed. Clearly some services and practitioners have high standards of practice in relation to family violence, but there also appears to be room for improvement in the sector. One factor that has contributed to the variability in standards is likely to be the recent rapid development of the FDR sector. The solutions to these problems appear to lie in extralegal measures such as improved training and accreditation, and improved screening and assessment frameworks. These issues are considered in more detail below Collaboration between FDR practitioners and those in the family violence sector may also pay dividends. The Commissions note that collaboration is already taking place in some FDR services. In addition, as noted elsewhere in Chapter 21, the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department has worked to support the improvement of standards in FDR practice by encouraging the collaboration of professionals in the sector. This work confronts the challenges that come when organisations work together from different perspectives on violence. 89 However, the Commissions also note that this Inquiry has demonstrated the many ways in which, despite the challenges, collaboration across different cultures and approaches to violence is crucial to resolving many of the problems of family violence. Recommendation 21 1 The Australian Government Attorney-General s Department should continue to collaborate with the family dispute resolution sector to improve standards in identification and appropriate management of family violence by family dispute resolution practitioners. 88 National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June W Ibbs and M Rogers, Fasten Your Seat Belts: We re in for a Bumpy Night: The Story of Collaboration between FDR and Family Violence Organisations (Paper presented at Family Relationship Services Association Conference Sydney, November 2009).

16 998 Family Violence A National Legal Response Screening and risk assessment practices A key element of FDR in practice is the process of screening and risk assessment, which is designed to ensure that victims of family violence are not using FDR in inappropriate circumstances, or to identify and mitigate any risk factors where FDR may be appropriate despite family violence or other risks. 90 Two issues arise in relation to screening and risk assessment. The first is whether FDR practitioners are reliably and appropriately screening and assessing risks of family violence in practice. The second is whether FDR practitioners have taken on the role of gatekeepers in the system and are performing a more general screening role in the family law system, especially by providing screening for family lawyers where litigation is contemplated. The first issue is dealt with in this section; the second is dealt with in the following section. FDR practitioners and screening Screening and risk assessment varies across different FDR agencies. For example, the 2008 KPMG report found that a wide variety of FDR practices were evident within the legal aid sector. 91 The report noted that most screening questions focused on the physical aspects of family violence, 92 and recommended enhanced screening for non-physical forms of violence. It noted observations of FDR practitioners that screening did not always reveal violence and abuse, and that this could derail the conferencing process. 93 The report also identified differences in how the various legal aid commissions approached issues of family violence. Nonetheless, the report found that the vast majority of legal aid clients surveyed felt safe or very safe both during and after the conference, 94 and the majority of FDR practitioners agreed that there were appropriate protocols in place for family violence The KPMG report made a number of recommendations to strengthen screening and intake processes, including: increasing the experience and knowledge of intake officers, lawyers, and FDR practitioners on particular matters; 96 using or modifying particular practices, such as interviews and screening questions; 97 and ensuring better preparation for the FDR process. 98 The report also recommended establishing protocols for delivering services to marginalised groups; 99 providing detailed practice guidance on the best interests of the child principle; 100 examining strategies for providing referral 90 Australian Catholic University and Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (2008), KPMG, Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions: Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department. 92 Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, 36, Ibid, Ibid, 36, Ibid, Ibid, 41.

17 21. Family Dispute Resolution 999 pathways to other support services; 101 and developing nationally consistent strategies for appropriately managing these issues Since the KPMG report was published, legal aid commissions have revised their practice standards and risk assessment and screening tools to ensure the safety of participants in FDR. In consultations, National Legal Aid advised the Commissions that there has been extensive sharing of screening tools and risk assessment protocols and best practice methodologies between the various legal aid commissions largely through the National Legal Aid Dispute Resolution Working Group to facilitate the ongoing development of a nationally consistent best practice approach. National Legal Aid also noted legal aid commissions engagement in ongoing interdisciplinary exchange of information and best practice in the handling of family violence across the wider family pathways network With respect to screening for FDR, National Legal Aid advised that the dynamics of family violence, as defined broadly, are taken into account. Screening includes questions that focus on emotional or psychological abuse, intimidation, coercion and financial control. National Legal Aid noted that the legal aid sector aims to ensure that clients are able to participate in FDR safely and without disadvantage. To achieve this, legal aid commissions encourage parties to be legally represented at conferences as this assists the FDR practitioner manage the conference to protect vulnerable and disadvantaged parties Further initiatives by the legal aid sector to deal with referral pathways and the development of protocols for delivery of services to CALD and Indigenous people are discussed below. 105 Screening frameworks The Australian Government Attorney-General s Department has published a Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (Screening and Assessment Framework), 106 which addresses many of the issues raised in the KPMG evaluation of FDR in the legal aid sector in detail. The framework is an extensive resource available on the departmental website for FDR practitioners. It includes a screening and assessment framework, referral guidelines, and indicators of family violence, child abuse and 101 Ibid, Ibid. 103 National Legal Aid, Correspondence, 20 September Legal Aid WA has been chosen as the lead agency for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution Pilot in Perth (one of five pilots sites around Australia). The focus of the pilot is to enhance interdisciplinary clinical and legal support to both victims and perpetrators of family violence in appropriate matters through a coordinated FDR process. 104 Ibid. 105 Legal Aid NSW told the Commissions that, following the release of the KPMG report, it established a Best Interest Child Committee to explore issues relating to information access, services and support. In addition Legal Aid NSW is funding the training of staff to develop a more child inclusive model of FDR. 106 Australian Catholic University and Australian Government Attorney-General s Department, Framework for Screening, Assessment and Referrals in Family Relationship Centres and the Family Relationship Advice Line (2008).

18 1000 Family Violence A National Legal Response abduction, and risk of self-harm. It discusses issues of supervision and practice support, and provides a range of resources for practitioners, including sample questions relevant to identification of violence The Victorian Government has similarly produced a comprehensive screening and risk assessment framework for all service providers in family violence. 107 This sets out a common framework, including six components: a shared understanding of risk and family violence; standardised risk assessment; referral pathways and information sharing; risk management strategies; data collection and analysis; and quality assurance. It also includes three practice guides directed towards different levels of risk assessment processes for different categories of service providers. A common framework has advantages in terms of inter-agency trust and cooperation. The Commissions note that the Australian Government Attorney-General s Department is currently developing a national framework to support screening and assessment for family violence across the federal family law system In relation to the issue of screening and risk assessment, the Family Law Council considered that: appropriate training in screening for family violence issues is essential for family dispute resolution practitioners, and those who refer matters to them. It is essential that practitioners have appropriate responses and options to offer once family violence is identified The Council recommended that a consistent framework for screening and risk assessment be developed in accordance with principles adopted in the common knowledge base proposed by the Council, 109 and that frameworks, tools and materials be endorsed by the expert panel and reference group In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that the Australian Government should promote the use of screening and risk assessment frameworks and tools for family dispute resolution practitioners through, for example, training, accreditation processes and audit and evaluations. 111 Submissions and consultations There was significant support in submissions for this proposal. 112 Domestic Violence Victoria, in a joint submission with other stakeholders, emphasised the 107 Government of Victoria, Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Supporting an Integrated Family Violence Service System (undated). 108 Family Law Council, Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System: An Advice on the Intersection of Family Violence and Family Law Issues (2009), Ibid. 110 Ibid, Consultation Paper, Proposal Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Women s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010; Magistrates Court and the Children s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010; Law Council of Australia,

19 21. Family Dispute Resolution 1001 importance of screening and assessment going beyond physical violence to explore the range of other behaviours that have the impact of intimidating, controlling and humiliating the victims of violence. 113 The involvement of the family violence sector in the further development of screening and assessment processes was supported and acknowledged by some submissions. 114 The screening and assessment tool employed by Victoria Legal Aid s Round Table Dispute Management program received particular acknowledgement as an effective tool developed in collaboration with the domestic violence sector. 115 The cross-sectoral collaboration between the Domestic Violence Resource Centre and Relationships Australia Victoria was also mentioned Training in the use of screening and assessment tools was described in submissions as very important, as was the understanding that screening is a process rather than an event initial screening should not provide the only point of disclosure. 117 The many disincentives to disclosing violence may mean that violence is only revealed, for example, after repeated inquiries or after trust in the service provider has been developed The development of screening and assessment tools was also described as not a one-off event : their continued refinement to reflect best practice is important. 118 One submission specifically endorsed the recommendation of the Family Law Council (referred to above) that screening and risk assessment frameworks, tools and materials Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 171, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 160, 24 June 2010;UnitingCare Children Young People and Families, Submission FV 151, 24 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 96, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 82, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 69, 2 June 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 40, 14 May 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June Women s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June The Victoria Legal Aid s Round Table Dispute Management program is discussed further, below, in the context of culturally responsive FDR. For a discussion of this collaboration and its challenges see W Ibbs and M Rogers, Fasten Your Seat Belts: We re in for a Bumpy Night: The Story of Collaboration between FDR and Family Violence Organisations (Paper presented at Family Relationship Services Association Conference Sydney, November 2009). 116 Family Relationship Services Australia, Submission FV 231, 15 July C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August Women s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August 2009.

20 1002 Family Violence A National Legal Response should be endorsed by an expert panel and reference group. 119 Professor Julie Stubbs submitted that the tools used should be empirically tested and established for use in the Australian context. 120 AIFS discussed the need for a reliable and validated tool to assist in the making of clinical judgments, and referred to work currently being done in Australia to produce more valid and reliable screening and risk assessment instruments for the family relationship sector. AIFS commented that commitment was required to coordinate these efforts so that a final product could be produced that would be user friendly and achieve a high level of confidence from lawyers and decision makers The issue of the cultural appropriateness of screening and assessment tools and training in their use was also mentioned in submissions. 122 The particular barriers to disclosure of family violence for Indigenous women and women who have particular needs because of language, ethnicity, immigration status, disability are also important. 123 Commissions views In view of the strong support for this proposal and the content of the submissions, the Commissions recommend that the Australian Government continue to support and promote: high quality screening and risk assessment frameworks and tools for family dispute resolution practitioners; the inclusion of these tools and frameworks in training and accreditation of FDR practitioners; and their inclusion in the assessment and evaluation of FDR services and practitioners. In this regard, the Commissions note the need, as suggested by AIFS, for coordination of efforts to develop valid and reliable screening and risk assessment instruments The Commissions also commend the work of FDR services in collaborating with the family violence sector to develop screening and assessment frameworks and other tools to improve practice. In the course of this Inquiry, which is focused on the intersections of the complex systems handling family violence, the importance of, and the challenges inherent in, communication and collaboration across divergent perspectives on violence have become very clear. Collaborative practice, integrated services and the closure of the gaps in the system are predicated on this type of work, 124 and reflect the principles for reform identified in this Inquiry Women s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June Australian Institute of Family Studies, Submission FV 222, 2 July Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 04, 23 August See further Chs 29, See Ch 3.