Latest News
Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution: Ensuring Safety Post-Separation in Australia
Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution: Ensuring Safety Post-Separation in Australia
The Australian family law system has had a difficult time providing less adversarial processes and procedures for post-separation family arrangements, particularly in situations where there is a history of domestic abuse (DV). Even though the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution model, which has the potential to provide a safe mediation environment in domestic violence contexts, has not been made available to the general public in Australia, the Federal Government has stated that it is committed to addressing family violence and ensuring that post-separation agreements are safe. In work that was produced throughout the 1980s and 1990s, feminists questioned whether or not family mediation could be a fair procedure that would result in just conclusions in situations like these. According to the findings of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) appears to be an effective dispute resolution method for a significant number of parents and their children. The findings of a study conducted in the United States have revealed that certain women regard the process as one that allows them to share their opinions and express their perspectives, and they also believe that they have equal power over the terms of the agreements. The implementation of the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution model into the family law system is a social and ethical duty that falls on the shoulders of the Australian government.
The traditional facilitative paradigm of family mediation, which is founded on the principles of party equality and relational party self-determination, does not provide victims of domestic abuse (DV) with a fair and just resolution. This is because it is difficult to accomplish party empowerment within the context of mediation without unsettling the ethical imperative to treat each party in an unbiased manner. The dynamic of domestic violence, which is centred on the perpetrator's use of coercive power and control, implies that offenders are often unable to engage productively with their victims. Providing clients with other choices, such as negotiating with the offender or becoming a self-represented litigant in the Family Court, does not necessarily guarantee that they will have access to justice. 2009 saw the beginning of conversations between the Australian Federal Attorney-General's Department and WLS regarding the development of a model of family mediation that would be known as Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR). To enhance safe and sustainable post-separation parenting outcomes for children and their families, the Child Family Development Resource (CFDR) was piloted in five different sites across Australia between the years 2010 and 2012. Four case-managed phases make up the paradigm, and each professional member contributes to the collaborative decision-making process involved in each step. The intake process includes an evaluation of whether or not the case is suitable for the conflict resolution and resolution (CFDR) process, the distribution of information to the parties involved, and the perpetrators of violence admitting the damage that domestic violence has had on the family.
A coordinated multidisciplinary approach, the incorporation of a professional risk assessment, the preparation of the parties for participation, the use of a lawyer-assisted mediation model, and the utilisation of the expertise of specialist domestic violence and men's workers are all components of the Family Court Decision Reconciliation (CFDR) process. As a result of the process's complexity and resource-intensive nature, a coordinated interdisciplinary approach is required to guarantee solutions that are both safe and effective. Under the direction of Dr Rae Kaspiew, the Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluated the CFDR pilot program. The results of this evaluation confirmed that the design features of the model are beneficial in supporting the safe and effective practice of family mediation in situations when there is a history of domestic violence being present. This approach is considered to be "at the cutting edge of family law practice" because it incorporates the deliberate use of mediation in situations where there is a history of domestic violence in a clinically collaborative environment that involves several agencies and multiple disciplines. CFDR, on the other hand, has not been implemented because of problems with politics, resources, and adequate money. A key problem in family governance and justice in 2016, the restoration of the CFDR model is required to ensure the protection of victims of abuse and their children after they have been separated from their perpetrators. The Australian government must make sure that parties involved in domestic violence situations have access to a secure form of mediation. The government must understand that to accomplish this goal, resources and skills are required. CFDR is an investment in the future lives of families that have been affected by domestic violence on a personal level.
References
[1] Field, Rachael M., and Angela Lynch. "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." Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 36.4 (2014): 392-402.
[2] Field, Rachael. "A call for a safe model of family mediation." Bond Law Review 28.1 (2016): 83-88.
[3] Batagol, Becky Melissa. Bargaining in the shadow of the law?: the case of family mediation. Diss. Monash University, 2011.
- Lack of less adversarial processes: Traditional mediation fails victims of domestic abuse.
- CFDR pilot effectiveness: Evaluation confirms benefits for safe family mediation in domestic violence cases.
- Implementation challenges: Political, resource, and funding issues hinder CFDR adoption.
