Over the past decade, there has been
growing concern that the Family
Court in Australia has not been achieving
optimum outcomes for separating parents
and their children. Many of the processes
within the court system are adversarial
and are therefore not conducive to encouraging
cooperative post-separation parenting.
This is especially relevant where there
have been allegations and/or incidents
of domestic violence, child sexual abuse,
or child abuse.
One approach to addressing some of the
issues inherent in the current system
was the Magellan
project conducted in the Melbourne
and Dandenong Registries of the Family
Court of Australia in the late 1990s.
Magellan was 'judge-led' and, although
it included a multi-disciplinary approach,
it essentially fast tracked cases involving
allegations of child abuse. The project
seemed to achieve significant results
in terms of time saved, agreed outcomes
(Consent Orders), and reduced stress on
litigants (and, vicariously, on their
children).The Magellan project evaluation
report suggested that a case-management
approach could produce a number of other
outcomes which significantly affect the
way the various Family Court processes
might be managed.
In early 2001, the Chief Judge of the
Family Court of Western Australia approved
a pilot project to assess the efficacy
of a comprehensive individualised case
management approach to expediting cases
where there had been allegations of domestic
violence, child sexual abuse, child abuse,
or where there was evidence of significant
risk factors. The Columbus Pilot project
was implemented in July 2001 and formally
launched at a symposium in November of
that year.
Advertisement
An interdisciplinary research team from
the Department
of Social Work and Social Policy at
The University of Western Australia and
the School
of Psychology at Edith Cowan University
was made available to conduct the evaluation
of the pilot project.
The team presented its First Interim Report
in July 2002 and this article reflects some
of the early findings in Stage I of the
evaluation as well as outlines the next
two Stages in the project.
The evaluation methodology sought to
replicate relevant aspects of the Magellan
project thereby providing for some degree
of comparative analysis. The team also
developed a mapping framework so that
each of the cases could be displayed and
compared against the Columbus Design in
terms of process, staff time-intensity,
and an imputed cost of Court staff. This
costing mechanism enabled a comparison
of relative costs between:
- the Columbus Pilot cases;
- a Control Group (cases with similar
characteristics to those in the Pilot
but which for one reason or another
did not meet the selection criteria);
- a Comparison Group (cases which were
excluded on the basis of their time
in the system);
- and the Columbus Design.
A total of 25 cases was mapped in this
first stage of the evaluation and it is
accepted that this is a very small sample.
However, the primary aim in Stage I was
to explore the efficacy of the methodology
and to assess its potential as an evaluation
approach. It is also possible to extend
the costing mechanism to include factors
such as Legal Aid assistance (both individual
representation and Child Representatives),
and the costs of legal representation.
Columbus was conceived as an early intervention
strategy in which clients would be: identified,
have risk issues confirmed, be referred
for inclusion, be assessed and allocated
to the Pilot (or Control Group), then
individually case managed through a series
of conferences. The conferences are jointly
chaired by a Registrar and a Counsellor
until either a stable, safe contact regime
is established or the matter is referred
back into the formal Court process (usually
for a Pre-Hearing Conference, and possible
Trial). There is currently no specified
number of conferences available to a couple,
although pressure on resources may require
some restrictions to be considered in
the future.
Advertisement
The Columbus design envisaged an initial
short court appearance where some indication
of violence or abuse alerted the Magistrate.
The matter was then referred to the Family
Court Counselling Service (FCCS), where
the couple were separately interviewed
to assess the situation and levels of
risk. Depending on the Counsellor's recommendations,
the Magistrate then formally referred
the case for assessment by the FCCS's
Manager. Once a case was included in the
Pilot, a Columbus Conference was then
scheduled as soon as possible. Cases which,
for various reasons, could not be assigned
to the Pilot were placed in the Control
Group.
The design cost of this process to the
end of the first two-hour Columbus conference
is estimated as approximately $1085. The
design cost of each successive conference
is about $900. The average imputed cost
of the 14 Columbus cases in this study
was $2,544 compared with the design cost
of $2,813. The average imputed cost of
the 11 Control Group cases was $1,330.
However, half of this group had not achieved
stable or acceptable outcomes and were
continuing with further, and increasingly
more expensive, Court Events (hence the
need for the longitudinal data in Stage
II).
It must be remembered that the clients
assigned to this study are some of the
most difficult and complex cases that
commonly require up to five days if they
proceed to Trial. The imputed cost of
court staff is approximately $3,000 for
each trial day (not including preparation
time). Thus the apparent initial high
cost of the Columbus process may be justified
purely in terms of cases that do not proceed
to Trial.
The First Interim Report considered the
data from a number of perspectives:
- a comparison with the Magellan project
outcomes;
- the Columbus Pilot process and benchmark
indicators;
- the impact on Family Court staff;
the impact on the wider Columbus Network;
and
- the impact on clients.
There was a significant difference in
the types of parental relationships between
the two populations (Western Australian
and Victorian). For example, the parents
in the Columbus sample tended to be younger,
the lengths of relationships were shorter,
and the ages of the children were younger
than in the Magellan project. These differences
may be a reflection of the small sample
sizes in the Columbus Pilot and will be
investigated further in Stage II.
The average time that a Columbus case
took from identification to the first
conference was two weeks - the benchmark
of early intervention is being achieved.
Eleven of the fourteen Columbus cases
(78 per cent) had achieved a stable contact
and residency regime within 25 weeks of
first filing. Only six of the 11 Control
Group cases (54 per cent) had achieved
a similar outcome within the same timeframe.
The Control Group averaged slightly fewer
Court Events (5.6 compared with 6.1) but
half of this group were scheduled for
further hearings.
Longitudinal data (Stage II) may well
establish that the Control Group will
conform to the pattern exhibited in the
Comparison Group where the average number
of Court Events needed to attain a stable
outcome was ten in each case (with an
average imputed cost of about $3,000).
This also suggests that the apparent initial
high cost of the Columbus process may
be more cost-effective in the long term.
Although the processes within Columbus
are highly managed and monitored, informal
feedback from Columbus clients suggests
that, although they may not achieve the
hoped-for outcomes, they at least feel
as if they have been heard and had their
views acknowledged. In contrast, the Control
Group cases continue under their own momentum,
and this creates its own pressure on all
parties (and their children).
Supplementary outcomes of the Columbus
Pilot have included the development of
an unprecedented degree of interdisciplinary
understanding, mutual acknowledgement,
and collegial support between the Family
Court's Judicial Officers and Counselling
Staff. This is having its own impact on
the culture of the Court. The Child Representatives
are also becoming an integral element
in the conferencing process as their role
evolves to address the challenges of a
'team approach'. Finally, the involvement
of non-government agencies as part of
the evolving Columbus Network has led
to new areas of understanding and collaboration.
Various protocols are being developed
which enable information sharing and referral
mechanisms to be more transparent.
Among the recommendations of the First
Interim Report was the need for both longitudinal
comparative data on the two sample populations
(Columbus and Control Group) and the inclusion
of formal feedback from clients and, if
possible, their children. Two distinct
but interconnected studies have been developed
(Columbus Stages II and III) to achieve
the recommendation. Both studies have
been funded and will be undertaken during
2003.
The Columbus process incorporates the
principles of enabling and empowering
parents to determine their own outcomes
as they seek to establish their own unique
post-separation parenting regime. On the
evidence to date, Columbus appears to
be achieving positive results for about
three quarters of the families involved
and, despite the apparent high cost, may
prove to be a cost-effective use of court
resources. Consideration is currently
being given to expanding the Pilot to
include cases involving allegations of
significant substance abuse.
In this respect, the Family Court of
Western Australia is playing a leading
role in addressing critiques of the Family
Court system while at the same time becoming
an increasing influence on the promotion
of social capital and therapeutic jurisprudence for its clients.
This is an edited
version of a paper presented at the Eighth
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Conference, Melbourne, 12-14 February
2003.