A systematic review of models developed in Australia, since 2006. concurrent session Wednesday 11th November.

1. NEW SOUTH WALES
A Review of Best Practice for
Families Affected by Violence
in Post-Separation FDR
Sarah Dobinson & Rebecca Gray
November 2015

2. NEW SOUTH WALES
• Aims and method of review
• Risks
• Benefits
• Non-disclosure
• Consensus
• Barriers
• Conclusions
Overview

3. NEW SOUTH WALES
• Conducted a systematic review of the literature
• Collated information on “best practice”
• Aim: to identify existing best practice and shed light on
areas of confusion to improve service delivery now and
over the next ten years
• We focused on legal and social sciences databases
• We focused on Australia since 2006
• We noted seminal writers (Field, Bagshaw, Moloney etc)
• Checked their reference lists
Aims and Method

4. NEW SOUTH WALES
There is a lack of community /
practice based research
Support organisations to publish
or disseminate their work
Key finding One

5. NEW SOUTH WALES
• FDRs aim of facilitating negotiation between equal
parties undermined by power imbalance
• Victims may be silenced, intimidated and exposed to
further violence
• Victims may be pressured into agreements
• Victims, and their children, are exposed to further risk
post-mediation
• Some victims prefer FDR to court, and describe benefits
Bagshaw et al., 2011; Kaspiew et al., 2010; Field, 2010; Sifris & Parker,
2014; ALRC, 2010; Kirkwood, 2007; Wheeler, Gray & Hewlett, 2015
Risks

6. NEW SOUTH WALES
These risks are most prevalent
where family violence is
not identified, or not handled
appropriately
Key finding two

7. NEW SOUTH WALES
• Reduced cost
• Increased flexibility
• Faster resolution
• A less-adversarial process
• Empowerment through:
o Increased self-determination;
o FDR can accommodate and recognise emotion; and
o The potentially therapeutic effect of having stories of
past violence heard and acknowledged
ALRC, 2010; Field & Lynch, 2014; Kirkwood, 2007; Wheeler, Gray & Hewlett, 2015
Benefits

8. NEW SOUTH WALES
The professionals need adequate
training in family violence
FDR model needs to be
responsive to family violence
Key finding Three

9. NEW SOUTH WALES
• The reality: cases involving family violence will continue
to undergo FDR (ALRC, 2010)
• 85% who attempted FDR had experienced emotional or
physical violence in their relationship (Moloney et al., 2010)
• 40% who reported experiencing emotional or physical
violence did not disclose in FDR (Bagshaw et al., 2010)
Non-disclosure

10. NEW SOUTH WALES
Reasons include:
• Shame
• Fear of retaliation
• Fear that they will not be believed
• Fear of being perceived as uncooperative
• Not ready or able to identify their history of family
violence at the beginning of FDR
Bagshaw et al., 2010; Kaspiew et al., 2010
Non-disclosure

11. NEW SOUTH WALES
May want to undergo FDR in preference to court:
• Perceived as less daunting
• Particularly for those who have to self-represent against
the perpetrator
• Victims perceive FDR as a faster route
• Put the needs of their children above their own
ALRC, 2010; Field, 2010; Kirkwood & McKenzie 2008
Non-disclosure

12. NEW SOUTH WALES
People who use violence may choose not to disclose:
• Due to shame
• Lack of insight
• Fear of repercussions
• Unwillingness to make admissions or take responsibility
ALRC, 2010; Kaspiew, De Maio et al. 2014
Non-disclosure

13. NEW SOUTH WALES
Given the prevalence of
domestic and family violence
in FDR, we need to develop a
family violence framework
as standard.
Key finding Four

14. NEW SOUTH WALES
Safety measures
• Gender-balanced professional team;
• Availability of telephone or shuttle mediation;
• Staggered arrivals and separate waiting areas;
• Risk assessment on separate days;
• Support persons waiting for them;
• Vulnerable party to speak first in mediation;
• Breaks to privately “check in” with the victim.
Field & Lynch, 2014; Kirkwood & McKenzie, 2008; Rice, Washington, Signal & Taylor,
2012; Sifris & Parker, 2014; Beck, Walsh, Mechanic & Taylor, 2010; Henry & Hamilton,
2012a; Kirkwood, 2007; Semple, 2012
Best Practice: Areas of Consensus

15. NEW SOUTH WALES
Consensus
Safety measures
• Safety plan must be developed for every case as soon
as risk is identified
o Revisit in response to dynamic nature of family violence
• Prepare the parties before FDR commences
• FDRP to abandon classically ‘neutral’ position in favour
of ensuring equality between parties
• Perpetrator accountability
• Post-mediation follow-up
Kirkwood & McKenzie, 2008; Field, 2010; Field & Lynch, 2014Bickerdike, 2007; Douglas
& Field, 2006; Kirkwood, 2007; Semple, 2012

16. NEW SOUTH WALES
Screening
• Screening identifies the presence of family violence
• Must be sophisticated to determine which cases proceed
Risk assessment
• Determines the nature, frequency and severity of
violence to determine the current level of the risk
• Conducted by highly trained and skilled professional
• Must be ongoing, periodic and undertaken amidst trust
Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks & Bala, 2008; Rathus, 2013; Sifris & Parker, 2014; Wangmann,
2008
Consensus

17. NEW SOUTH WALES
Screening, risk assessment and
training are time and resource
intensive, but imperative
Research is needed to overcome
barriers associated with
resourcing
Key finding five

18. NEW SOUTH WALES
Collaborative practice
• Allows varied needs of clients to be met through holistic
response
• Allows professionals to share their professional
knowledge and expertise
• Inter-professional collaboration increases accountability
Croucher, 2014; Field & Lynch, 2014; Jaku-Greenfield, 2012; Kaspiew et al., 2014;
Moloney, Kaspiew, De Maio, Deblaquiere, 2013a; Moloney, Qu, Weston & Hand, 2013b
Consensus

19. NEW SOUTH WALES
Collaborative practice
• Lawyers are important in equalising power imbalance
• Can empower victim by:
o Explaining legal rights and responsibilities
o Preparing them for mediation
o Assisting them in identifying and advocating for their
interests and those of their children
o Helps make final agreement legally binding
o Facilitate alternatives FDR unsuccessful or unsuitable
Field & Lynch, 2014; Moloney et al., 2013; Kaspiew et al., 2012; Field, 2004;
Consensus

20. NEW SOUTH WALES
Outcomes are improved by good
collaboration
We need more published
accounts of what works in good
collaborative practice
Key finding six

21. NEW SOUTH WALES
Issues with Screening and Risk Assessment
• No universal screening tool
• Practice varies across agencies and between staff
• Ensuing debate about tools
– What the tools should look like
– Who should administer them
• Universal tools are not culturally or locally appropriate
• Tools do not factor in victim or professional capacities
Henry & Hamilton, 2012; Kirkwood & McKenzie, 2008; Rice et al., 2012; Sifris & Parker,
2014; Pokman, 2014; Kaspiew et al., 2012; McIntosh 2013
Barriers to Best Practice

22. NEW SOUTH WALES
Differing Understandings of Family Violence
• In 2011 family violence definition introduced to FLA
• BUT differing philosophical approaches remain
• Should we use typologies?
o Does this fit with family law definition?
o Too great a focus on physical violence
o Too great a focus on single acts of abuse
• If combined with a focus on coercion, control and fear
risks placing too great an evidentiary burden on victim
Croucher, 2014; Rathus, 2013; Robinson & Moloney, 2010; Wangmann, 2008; Kelly &
Johnson, 2008; Bickerdike, 2007; Beck & Raghaven, 2010
Barriers

23. NEW SOUTH WALES
Differing Understandings of Family Violence
• Is family violence gendered?
• Family violence theorists:
o Define FV as “interpersonal conflict”
o Count individual acts of physical or emotional violence
o Severity is derived from physical abuse
o Findings suggest FV is gender balanced
• Feminist theorists:
– Assess purpose, impact, history and context
– Findings indicate women are more likely to experience FV
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010; Bagshaw et al., 2010b; Kaspiew et al., 2012;
Kirkwood, 2007; Cleak et al., 2014; Wangmann, 2008.
Barriers

24. NEW SOUTH WALES
Understanding of FV affects practice
• Disagreement diminishes collaborative practice
• Affects which cases are identified as involving FV and
assessment of the nature and severity of risk in
screening and risk assessment
• Agency and practitioner understandings of FV will
influence how these cases are managed
Barriers

25. NEW SOUTH WALES
“Culture Clash” between lawyers and FDRPs
• Lack of trust
• Differing professional values and languages
• Differing understandings of family violence
• Conflicting views on client needs
• Lack of understanding of each other’s roles, goals and
objectives
Hollonds, Hayes & Gleeson, 2012; Jaku-Greenfield, 2012; Kaspiew et al.,
2009; Moloney et al., 2013
Barriers

26. NEW SOUTH WALES
Professionals should be trained
and educated on family violence
and on each other’s roles,
limitations and responsibilities
If this is happening, the findings
need to be published or shared
Key finding seven

27. NEW SOUTH WALES
Confusion about which model of mediation to employ
• Disagreement about different FDR models
– Absence of research on the effectiveness of interventions for
men who use violence alongside FDR
• Lack of focused research about the efficacy of all models
• Confusion about when to use Child Inclusive Practice
• Safety concerns raised, need for case by case decisions
• Need for further research to resolve debates
Field & Lynch, 2014; Goodhardt, Fisher & Moloney, 2005; Smyth & Moloney, 2003;
Hamilton & Henry, 2012b; Hart, 2013; Hart, 2009; Kaspiew et al., 2012
Barriers

28. NEW SOUTH WALES
Consensus:
• Screening
• Risk assessment
• Interagency collaboration
• Balance power between parties
• Professional development
Conclusions

29. NEW SOUTH WALES
Dissension:
• What screening tools? Universal tools?
• How should they be used? Who to screen out?
• Who should administer these tools?
• How to define family violence in this context?
• How to improve interagency collaboration?
• Which mediation style is most appropriate?
Conclusions

30. NEW SOUTH WALES
Dobinson, S. & Gray, R. (2015, November). A Review of
Best Practice for Families Affected by Violence in Post-
Separation FDR: Objectives for the Next Ten Years.
Future of Families: Preparing for Change, FRSA National
Conference. Gold Coast, Australia: Brisbane Convention
and Exhibition Centre.
Publication under review with the
Australian Journal of Family Law
Thanks!
Suggested citation