Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR): An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

Rachael M Field, Angela Lynch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)381-191
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

domestic violence
mediation
history
violence
family law
compromise
funding
resources

Cite this

@article{fd085caef9564d70a6ca451fa88ca791,
title = "Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR): An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence",
abstract = "This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.",
author = "Field, {Rachael M} and Angela Lynch",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1080/09649069.2014.967988",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "381--191",
journal = "The Journal of social welfare law",
issn = "0141-8033",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR)

T2 - An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

AU - Field, Rachael M

AU - Lynch, Angela

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

AB - This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

U2 - 10.1080/09649069.2014.967988

DO - 10.1080/09649069.2014.967988

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 381

EP - 191

JO - The Journal of social welfare law

JF - The Journal of social welfare law

SN - 0141-8033

IS - 4

ER -