A specialist unit within Victoria’s Children’s Court using mediation to settle child protection disputes could be disbanded under a cost-saving proposal, the ABC can reveal.
The move has angered a cross-section of child protection agencies and lawyers working within Victoria’s child protection space who say the hearings, known as conciliation conferences, serve an important purpose.
“Conciliation Conferences were the jewel in the Children’s Court crown,” Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency (VACCA) chief executive Muriel Bamblett said.
The changes would remove the three-hour-long mediation hearings, instead progressing disputed child protection custody arrangements directly to shorter hearings before a magistrate or other court officer.
“We have written to the Children’s Court seeking a meeting to voice our concerns, but have been denied a meeting,” said lawyer Catherine Middlemiss, who spoke on behalf of more than a dozen other lawyers and law firms.
“This decision by the court, framed as a cost-cutting measure, reduces the number of hearings available for families to contest the decisions made by child protection.”
Lawyers are concerned the changes will put families in front of the court before important mediation. (Pexels: Katrin Bolovstova)
Conciliation conferences give parents, child protection workers and lawyers an opportunity to sit down with a court-appointed convenor to come to an agreement regarding a child’s care. Older children can also take part with their own legal representation.
Lawyers working in the sector suggested removing conciliation conferences would strip parents of an opportunity to have their voices heard in the emotionally fraught process, pushing them straight into hearings with a magistrate.
Several lawyers the ABC spoke to believed that, while the changes were being sold as a proposal, the decision had been made already to remove the hearings.
Fears scrapping conferences would hit vulnerable families
Victoria Legal Aid is among the groups calling for a rethink.
“We have concerns about the proposal to cease conciliation conferences and, in particular, the impact it will have on First Nations families,” Victoria Legal Aid executive director Joanna Fletcher said.
“Conciliation conferences provide the only opportunity for families involved in child protection proceedings to speak with their own voice and directly participate in reaching an agreement with the department or narrowing the issues to be resolved in a court hearing.
“Victoria Legal Aid strongly supports family-led decision-making in child protection proceedings.”
Advocates say the conferences help families prior to adversarial court proceedings.
(Pexels/Pixabay)
An internal Court Services Victoria document, seen by the ABC, shows the plan would result in the axing of 34 specialist jobs and the Children’s Court’s Conciliation Conference Unit.
“The present fiscal environment in which all Victorian public sector entities are operating requires Courts Group to accelerate its efforts to find more efficient and effective ways of delivering services,” an information pack for court workers implicated in the restructure said.
The document details redundancy packages for the unit’s employees.
Among the jobs to be cut are the roles of 14 convenors who run the Children’s Court’s conciliation conference meetings and three Koori convenors.
Child protection workers and lawyers familiar with the system have told the ABC they are worried the move will, in particular, disadvantage vulnerable members of the community and Aboriginal families.
VACCA is among a growing number of Aboriginal-community-controlled organisations taking on the role of the child protection authority in cases where Aboriginal families are involved.
It is calling on the court to safeguard conciliation conferences.
“The importance of conciliation conferences in producing outcomes in the best interests of vulnerable children cannot be overstated,” Ms Bamblett said.
Muriel Bamblett says the move will be detrimental to Aboriginal families. (Supplied: naidoc.org.au)
Ms Bamblett, who was this year awarded Person of the Year at the National NAIDOC Awards, said the conciliation conferences allowed Aboriginal children, parents, and other members of their community the chance to be heard.
“Any measure that further reduces the opportunity for Aboriginal families to have a voice in their own affairs will see Aboriginal children and families worse off,” she said.
“Conciliation conferences were the forum that provided the greatest opportunity for Aboriginal families to do this in the context of child protection proceedings.”
She described removing the hearings as a regressive step.
“Aboriginal families are grossly over-represented in the child protection system and therefore any process that negatively impacts other families disproportionately impacts Aboriginal families,” she said.
“We know that what makes a difference for Aboriginal families is processes and approaches that maximise the opportunity for Aboriginal children and families to participate and be treated with dignity.
“Conventional court processes are the antithesis of such an approach.”
The court has justified the proposed change by arguing other types of hearings that occur in a courtroom setting, known as alternative dispute resolution hearings, have resulted in settlements in 57 per cent of cases.
“These hearings, scheduled for only 1.5 hours, are adversarial rather than collaborative,” Ms Middlemiss said.
“Lawyers speak directly to the magistrate on behalf of the families, who remain silent.”
About 40 per cent of child protection cases that go to conciliation in the Children’s Court are settled each year. That settlement rate has remained roughly steady between 2020 and 2023.
A Victorian government spokesperson said no decisions had been finalised.
(ABC News: Patrick Rocca)
Lawyer Meg Smallwood, who has worked in the child protection space in Victoria’s Gippsland region for more than a decade, said she was convinced the move away from conciliation conferences was being pursued for financial reasons.
She said she did not consider the lower settlement rate a reason to abandon the process.
“In comparison to all of the other hearings that occur in this jurisdiction, it’s the one time where those people have a voice,” she said of conciliation hearings.
“It’s such an intense part of their lives. It’s the worst thing that could ever happen to you, having your children removed, so I think it’s a really important space.
She said many of her clients were intimidated by a formal court setting.
“A lot of them fold under that sort of pressure when you’ve got a judicial officer there,” she said.
Advocates take concerns to Victorian government
A group of 26 lawyers and firms wrote of their concerns to Minister for Children Lizzie Blandthorn. Objections had also been raised with the Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes and the Children’s Court, the ABC has been told.
They have criticised the court for failing to consult on the changes.
“I find it mind-boggling that there’s not been any sort of other consultation around outcomes for families, around effects that this will have on families,” Ms Smallwood said.
“There needs to be a blanket consultation, particularly with Aboriginal organisations, with all the stakeholders that are involved in the process, with families that have been through this process, and finding out how important that was for them.”
The ABC sent questions to Ms Symes and the Children’s Court asking whether the changes were driven by a desire to cut costs, what level of consultation had been undertaken and whether the move would disadvantage Aboriginal clients in the system.
Victorian Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes. (ABC News: Danielle Bonica)
Neither Court Services Victoria nor Ms Symes provided answers to those questions.
“No decisions have been made by the Court,” a Victorian government spokesperson said in a statement.
“The Children’s Court has confirmed that staff will be consulted, and any decision will continue to be in line with the needs of Victorian families and children.”
Court Services Victoria said the changes were in the consultation period.
“Affected employees and the Community and Public Sector Union have an opportunity to respond to the proposed change and provide feedback or alternative proposals prior to any decisions being made,” the Court Services Victoria spokesperson wrote.
Beyond consultation with employees facing retrenchment, the ABC understands there has been little to no consultation about the removal of conciliation conferences with other relevant parties.
