The quotes extracted directly above, point to legal obligations such as client confidentiality as playing a role in the observed lack of cooperation. More broadly, other non-ICL lawyers identified collaborative work practices as not being part of lawyers’ adversarial approach to practice:
Lawyers are not trained to be collaborative or to work in a collaborative way with other professionals. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
Because they are partly in the role of “judge and jury”, ordinary frank and reciprocating cooperation is impossible, which is a very frustrating and complicating factor for the two lawyers who are required to deal with an ICL, and have (virtually) no say as to whether one should be appointed in the first place. If an ICL is proposed/requested by anyone, it seems that the court automatically appoints one. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
33 These sections permit family counsellors (FLA s10D(4)) and family dispute resolution practitioners (FLA s10H(4)) “to disclose a communication if the counsellor or Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of: (a) protecting a child from the risk of harm (whether physical or emotional); or (b) preventing or lessening a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of a person; or (c) reporting the commission, or preventing the likely commission, of an offence involving violence or a threat of violence to a person; or (d) preventing or lessening a serious or imminent threat to the property of a person; or (e) reporting the commission, or preventing the likely commission, of an offence involving intentional damage to property of a person or a threat of damage to property; or (f) if a lawyer independently represents a child’s interests under an order under s68L—assisting the lawyer to do so properly”.
Cooperation and collaboration: ICL practices in dealing with other professionals
Family law professionals should be taught how to be less suspicious and less hostile towards ICLs. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
One judicial officer identified not only lack of funding as stifling a collaborative approach, but also the influence of the adversarial underpinnings of our legal system, together with the “individual commitment” of ICLs:
The legislation allows ICLs a far greater freedom and ability to interact than any other lawyer (in some cases allowing information release that is precluded to all others), yet such powers and lines of enquiry are rarely used. This is, no doubt, partly related to funding, but also individual commitment. Litigious lawyers do not interact with (nor appreciate the importance of interacting with) other professions and thus have no place on the roster. [Judicial officer, survey]
More broadly, but consistent with these views, some non-legal professionals suggested that ICLs’ training and experience as lawyers did not support or encourage working cooperatively with professionals from other disciplines34 and identified cooperation between ICLs and other
family law system professionals as an “ongoing developmental goal”:
ICLs do not appear to be trained to cooperate outside of the legal system. [Non-legal professional, survey]
There seems to be some variance in the way that ICLs approach their role, with some taking an adversarial role, with others taking a more advocacy role. Role clarification for all concerned would be helpful. [Non-legal professional, survey]
In highly litigious cases, some (not all) barristers seem to view their role in [family dispute resolution] as strongly adversarial, i.e., negating the ICL’s views. However, in fairness, I have also witnessed some barristers in high-conflict cases who appear to be quite keen to listen to the ICL’s views. More work is needed with the Bar, Family Law Section, to educate on the role of ICLs in high-conflict cases. [Non-legal professional, survey]
A few have been helpful and competent, but they have been the exceptions. There is not a strong collaborative approach, which is a great pity, and a significant number have limited insight into the complex and sensitive nature of working with children and young adults. It is not believed [to be] the area of expertise of lawyers. [Non-legal professional, survey]
5.3 Clearer pathways/guidelines for cooperation/
collaboration
Confusion about the nature and level of cooperation and collaboration permissible between ICLs and other family law system professionals, was a factor clearly emerging for some non- legal professionals:
I am not entirely clear what the guidelines actually are about communication between the family consultant and the ICL. I have never received any formal training in how family consultants and ICL should/should not communicate or work together. I am often given conflicting information about what is an acceptable/unacceptable level of 34 Challenges relating to inter-professional collaboration were identified in Kaspiew et al. (2012) as arising from
varying practice philosophies, the level of “interdisciplinary understanding and a commitment to working in a collaborative and interdisciplinary manner and in relation to information sharing” (p. 93). Consistent themes have emerged in the context of an increasing focus on building collaborative relationships between family dispute resolution practitioners and family lawyers: Rhoades et al. (2008) identified successful collaborative relationships but also “significant misunderstandings and tensions” between lawyers and FDR practitioners (pp. 186–187). See also earlier work by Rhoades, Sanson, and Astor, with Kaspiew (2006). Note also that interdisciplinary tensions were also identified in the AIFS evaluation (Kaspiew et al., 2009), with support expressed for “initiatives designed to promote a shared commitment to responsible FDR between lawyers and FDR professionals, and between lawyers and other service sector professionals, [as] likely to improve the efficacy of … FDR in particular, and the family law system in general” (p. 110).
84 Australian Institute of Family Studies Chapter 5
communication between the [family consultant] and the ICL. A training package for new family consultants would be helpful. [Non-legal professional, survey]
Clarity for all [regarding] who can discuss issues with an ICL if appointed and what information is confidential or privileged. But no guidelines as to when they would, and clarity that this is the professional’s judgment, not a demand from the ICL. Same for [family dispute resolution practitioners], but no mention of [children’s contact service] or post-parenting order program. [Non-legal professional, survey]
Clearer expectations or guidelines regarding cooperation and collaboration between ICLs and other professionals appear warranted, according to some open-ended survey responses from ICLs, non-ICL lawyers and non-legal professionals:
Setting expectations as to how the professionals should be collaborating could be done better, including by way of 3-way conferences with lawyers, excluding parties, so that each can fully ventilate how they the case [is] going. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
The court should give a clear direction upon the appointment of an ICL that all correspondence sent between the parties in order to resolve a parenting issue be copied to an ICL. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
In our practice there does not seem to be a formal protocol of cooperation between ICL and other family law system professionals, save for other family lawyers. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
The professional standards and obligations sometimes are in direct opposition to those of legal aid. [Non-ICL lawyer, survey]
I would dearly love to see more formally established pathways for collaboration with child protection authorities and more funding for family consultants to work early and closely with ICLs. [ICL, private practice, survey]
While variability in the level of cooperation was identified on an individual ICL level, at a policy level, cooperation was described positively, with education and training mechanisms in place:
There is a high level of cooperation at agency level. This does break down to a degree in practice, due to individual ICLs, [family consultants] or other external service providers in the non-government organisation sector [who] do not value the effectiveness of collaborative work practice. There is always work being done across the sector, often through the Family Pathways network and other interagency training and events to promote the collaborative working relationships that is generally and increasingly valued and recognised. This is well recognised by the judiciary. [Non-legal professional, survey]
Nevertheless, more opportunities to network and greater clarification and structuring of cooperation was similarly recommended by some non-legal practitioners:
More opportunities for us to formally network and meet from time to time would be good. [Non-legal professional, survey]
The demarcation between [the] normal family law practice role (i.e., individual representation of one parent’s interest) and the specific role as an ICL in the same court circuit and location (representing the children as ICL) is sometimes a bit blurry. ICLs need support in ensuring the ICL role is distinct from “regular” legal roles. ICL interaction with other family law system professionals needs to be well-structured and highly professional, with lots of support from [the] magistrate and local circuit, as well as [legal] practices that release staff to become ICLs. [Non-legal professional, survey]
In addition, non-legal professionals indicated that there was potential to improve clarity in legislation and information-sharing principles with regard to ICL interaction with child protection professionals, as well as providing training to ICLs to improve these interactions:
Do I share information with the ICLs? Don’t I? Does it have to be subpoenaed? Doesn’t it? Even if the file’s subpoenaed, can I still verbally? So there’s a lot of uncertainty in terms of what child protection can and can’t share. [Child protection department representative, Victoria]
Cooperation and collaboration: ICL practices in dealing with other professionals
Training for ICLs on the interface with child protection services and police is required. [Non-legal professional, survey]
In relation to communicating with child protection professionals, child protection department representatives (e.g., from SA and WA) described the need to consider alternative ways to share information with ICLs (such as using more electronic communication), citing the issues raised by the subpoena process in terms of the time and resources required to reproduce the large paper files. Avoiding duplication of entire files was reported to be a benefit of having an FLA s69ZW/FCA(WA) s202K report, although this method was yet to have a strong take-up among ICLs. Another strategy reported by the child protection department representative from WA was encouraging ICLs to request specific documents from a file, such as the latest report, rather than subpoenaing the whole file.
It is of note that the current national Guidelines for Independent Children’s Lawyers (National Legal Aid, 2013) envisage and provide guidance for a collaborative relationship between the ICL and relevant experts, identifying that, as part of the ICL’s role, the ICL “should seek to work together” with any family consultant/expert involved in the case “to promote the best interests of the child” (Guideline 4). Guideline 5.2 also provides that an ICL “should seek guidance from a family consultant or other professional when necessary”. More specifically, guideline 5.3 provides that the ICL may consult with the family consultant, single expert or other relevant expert regarding “the content of the child’s views; the contexts in which those views both arise and are expressed; the willingness of the child to express views; and any relevant factors associated with the child’s capacity to communicate”. In relation to deciding whether to meet with a child/young person, and the circumstances of such a meeting, guideline 6.2 provides that the ICL may make this assessment in consultation with the family consultant or other relevant expert in a case. Guideline 6.3 provides further specific guidance regarding the consultation between the ICL and family consultant/expert with regard to the information that the family consultant/expert may provide to an ICL and states that “the ICL should liaise with any family consultant or other expert appointed to provide a report”. Further specific guidance with respect to the ICL liaising with the family consultant or other experts in the context of facilitating the provision of their report is also provided in guideline 6.7.35 Improved awareness
of these guidelines may facilitate effective collaborative relationships between ICLs and non- legal professionals. Previous research evaluating the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) program has identified protocols that guide information-sharing practices as significant in supporting “clarity and mutual understanding to exist between professionals and between professionals and clients” (Kaspiew et al., 2012, p. 101).
5.4 Summary
This chapter examined ICL practices in dealing with other professionals, including other legal practitioners (primarily parents’ legal representatives) and family consultants. The chapter also considered policy arrangements affecting ICLs’ communication and cooperation, and current practices involving cooperation and collaboration between ICLs and other family law system professionals and assessments of these interactions.
The discussion identified that a range of formal and informal arrangements or policies were in place that covered ICLs’ interactions with family law professionals (including those in courts and child protection departments). The discussion about frequency of ICL contact with other family law system professionals identified that although more than three-quarters of ICLs reported that they often or always had contact with the legal representative of a parent/extended family member or with a family consultant or external expert when reflecting on their last three ICL cases, only 19% reported the same level of contact with child protection case officers. The significance of having cooperative and collaborative practices between ICLs and other family law professionals (in particular, family consultants/experts) emerged clearly from both the closed and open-ended survey responses of ICLs, non-ICL lawyers, non-legal professionals and judicial officers. Specifically, 75% of ICLs identified working with family consultants or external experts as significant or very significant, compared to 87% of non-legal professionals, 69% of judicial officers and 67% of non-ICL lawyers. Positive reflections about current levels of
86 Australian Institute of Family Studies Chapter 5
cooperation and collaboration with ICLs emerged in all respondent categories; however, non- legal professionals were, in the main, the most positive in their reflections.
Various factors impeding cooperative and collaborative practices between ICLs and other family law system professionals were also identified from the perspectives of ICLs, judicial officers, non-ICL lawyers and non-legal professionals. From the perspective of ICLs, the inability to access relevant experts by reason of lack of funds or locality, was a significant issue, as was the perceived lack of cooperation from child protection departments and legal representatives of the parties. From the perspective of non-legal professionals, and more particularly from non-ICL lawyers, difficulties with cooperative and collaborative practices were seen to stem from various factors. These included ICLs’ lack of availability or attention to the case, their failure to communicate their views in an adequate or timely manner, ICL workload, and limited resources, together with significant variability among ICL personalities and practice approaches. A number of practitioners suggested that clearer guidelines or pathways would go some way towards ameliorating impediments to cooperative and collaborative practices. A particular need for training resources for new family consultants to guide their engagement with ICLs was also raised. Further avenues for addressing the factors impeding cooperation and collaboration among ICLs and other family law professionals will be addressed in the Chapter 6, which considers the selection, accreditation, training, professional development and supervision of ICLs.
6
Survey and interview questions concerning ICL training, selection, professional development and supervision elicited substantial feedback from ICLs, judicial officers and other professionals. This chapter examines these issues. It begins by setting out the organisational approaches to both the training and selection of ICLs and the ongoing professional development strategies in place in each state and territory as described by the legal aid commissions. Second, insights from the survey and interview data concerning these issues are considered. The chapter ends with a discussion regarding professional supervision arrangements.
6.1 Training and selection of ICLs
6.1.1 National training program
Each of the legal aid commissions has a basic requirement that lawyers who conduct ICL matters will have completed the Independent Children’s Lawyer Training Program, presented by the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, in conjunction with National Legal Aid. ICLs are also expected to have a minimum of five years of post-admission experience.
6.1.2 Appointment to ICL panel
In addition to requiring ICLs to have completed the national training program, each of the states and territories has implemented a process for managing appointments of private practitioners to the ICL panel. Each commission described the requirements for appointment to the panel in written responses and telephone interviews. The minimum requirements are similar across the states and territories, but each commission differs in their description of the process for making an application for appointment, as well as the formality of that process.
New South Wales
The process for appointing ICL lawyers is governed by Part 3, Division 2 Legal Aid Commission
Act 1979 (NSW). In NSW, individual lawyers are appointed to panels, not firms.
Practitioners wishing to be appointed to the ICL panel in NSW are required to complete an application for appointment to the panel. In addition to demonstrating they meet the national prerequisites, practitioners must also address the selection criteria for the panel and provide the details of two referees.
A selection committee—comprised of nominees from each of the Law Society of NSW and the NSW Bar Association, as well as nominees of the Legal Aid NSW Executive Director, Family Law, and Executive Director, Grants and Community Partnerships—considers applications for appointment to the ICL panel.
The selection committee makes recommendations for each applicant. The Legal Aid NSW CEO makes the final decision. Applicants who are not to be appointed are given reasons and an opportunity to make further submissions before the final decision is made, as required by the
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW).