Is justice delayed, justice denied? The Family Court trials case management

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.