Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Family Justice Reforms |
Last Updated: 25 May 2020
Evaluation of the 2014 Family Law Reforms: Phase
One
Report to the New Zealand Law
Foundation
February 2015
Megan
Gollop (Children’s Issues Centre)
Associate Professor Nicola Taylor
(Children’s Issues Centre)
Professor Mark Henaghan (Faculty of
Law)
UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO
Contents
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible with the foresight and generous financial support of the New Zealand Law Foundation - Te Manatū a Ture o Aotearoa. We greatly appreciated their Board’s willingness to invest in the development of a research strategy pertaining to some of the most significant reforms in the family law field in New Zealand. We would particularly like to thank Lynda Hagen, Executive Director, and Dianne Gallagher, Grants Manager, for their invaluable collegiality and support.
We also wish to express our sincere appreciation to Dr Rae Kaspiew (Senior Research Fellow: Family Law, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne) and Associate Professor Bruce Smyth (ARC Future Fellow, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra) for acting as consultants to this project and so willingly sharing their experience and advice with us regarding the Australian family law reforms and their evaluation.
Our project was significantly strengthened through its collaboration from the outset with the Research and Evaluation Team at the Ministry of Justice. Our thanks, in particular, to Dr Angela Lee (Principal Advisor) and Sarah Talboys (Senior Advisor). We were very pleased that the project was the first one to capitalise on the Memorandum of Understanding between the New Zealand Law Foundation and the Ministry of Justice to establish a closer working relationship for their mutual benefit.
Finally, we wish to thank the many people and agencies working in the family
justice sector in New Zealand, Australia and England
who met with us and/or
attended the Workshop we hosted in Wellington on 30 October 2014. The
contribution of their expertise, views
and experiences has been invaluable and
we gratefully acknowledge their co-operation in helping to develop an evaluative
research
strategy that will potentially be unique in the New Zealand family law
context.
Introduction
The Family Law Reforms that took effect in New Zealand on 31 March 2014 (Family Dispute Resolution Act and Regulations 2013) “mark the most significant changes to New Zealand’s family justice system since the establishment of the Family Court” in 1981 (Collins, 2014, p. 1; see also Ministry of Justice, 2011). These reforms are based on the review of the Family Court undertaken by the Ministry of Justice from 2011-2014. They primarily relate to Care of Children Act 2004 matters, which account for about 40 per cent of applications to the Family Court, and aim to reduce the stress on families and children by avoiding, wherever possible, the delays, conflict and expense that court proceedings can entail. The Family Court’s response to domestic violence is also strengthened.
Background to the 2014 Reforms
The New Zealand Family Court was established as a division of the District Court on 1 October 1981 (Family Courts Act 1980). An initial review was undertaken by a committee appointed in December 1992 by the Principal Family Court Judge. The committee was tasked with revisiting “the philosophy upon which the Court was created, and by examining how the Court was presently functioning, to report on whether the balance seemed right” (Boshier, Beatson, Clark, Henshall, Priestley, & Seymour, 1993, p. 22). The review was completed in 1993 and made a number of recommendations for improvements to service delivery. Prominent among these was the call for the establishment of a separate Family Conciliation Service (recommendation 5.7.1) utilising mediation as the primary method of dispute resolution (recommendation 5.7.3). The role of the Family Court would become quite distinct from the role of the Family Conciliation Service (recommendation 6.5.1), with the former only to be used, and applications filed, when a decision on a family law issue was required (recommendation 6.5.4). Parents would be able to approach the Family Conciliation Service without the assistance of lawyers. Whilst the Report’s case management recommendations were acted upon to increase the efficiency of the Court, the Family Conciliation Service was not endorsed by the Government of the day.
A second review was later conducted by the New Zealand Law Commission, which received terms of reference from the Government in June 2001 to:
... undertake a review to consider what changes, if any, are necessary and desirable in the administration, management and procedure of the Family Court in order to facilitate the early resolution of disputes. (Law Commission, 2002, p. 1)
A Scoping Paper, published in July 2001, was followed by a Discussion Paper (Law Commission, 2002) which revealed that the present dispute resolution system was inadequate for responding to family transitions in the most timely, helpful and holistic manner possible. Following the receipt of 126 written submissions, the Law Commission’s final report, Dispute Resolution in the Family Court (2003) was disseminated. This strongly recommended better resourcing of the present system to reduce the delays caused by insufficient court time, the shortage of psychologist report writers and lack of assistance from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. A new, expanded conciliation service was also proposed with mediators being contracted to offer mediation services to clients. The report promoted the participation of children in conciliation processes (particularly counselling and mediation) and the ascertaining and incorporation of their views in dispute resolution procedures. Upskilling court staff and contracted professionals, extending the role of the Family Court co-ordinator, enhancing information about the court within the community, and making court services more culturally responsive were also all recommended. The Law Commission made “no recommendations for major jurisdictional or operational change” (Ministry of Justice, 2003, p. 2), but rather focused upon ways of improving the conciliation processes and altering public perceptions of the Court.
The Government’s response to the New Zealand Law Commission’s report (Ministry of Justice, 2003) centred on three immediate initiatives:
In 2011 Cabinet agreed to a third Review of the Family Court, to be carried out by the Ministry of Justice. A consultation paper with options for reform was released for public comment in September 2011 and 209 submissions were received by the closing date of 29 February 2012. A sample of 173 Care of Children Act cases and 88 Property Relationship Act case files were also analysed, and an External Reference Group established to assist the Ministry of Justice with the review. The 2011 Review identified that:
There was also considerable concern about the cost to the taxpayer of running the Family Court. This had increased 70 per cent in the six years to 2012, from $84 million to $142 million per year, despite the overall number of applications to the court remaining relatively steady.
On 2 August 2012 the Minister of Justice, Hon. Judith Collins, announced a package of reforms to the Family Court to create a modern, accessible family justice system that is more focused on the needs of children and vulnerable people. The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament in 2012 and then considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which received 386 written submissions and heard 217 oral submissions. The Bill passed its Third Reading in Parliament on 19 September 2013, assent was given on 24 September 2013, and the changes took effect on 31 March 2014.
Purpose of the 2014 Reforms
The General Policy Statement included in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill stated the purpose of the reforms as follows:
To ensure a modern, accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people, and is efficient and effective. (p. 1)
While not stated explicitly, the objectives of the reforms can be extracted from this policy statement as:
The focus on supporting people to resolve their own disputes, mainly through out-of-court family dispute resolution, is based on the following assertions:
Summary of the Changes
The 2014 reforms largely focus on Care of Children Act 2004 matters, which include issues relating to children’s post-separation care arrangements such as day-to-day care and contact. They aim to make the Family Court more efficient and effective, to provide better information (including via a new website), and to introduce new Court forms, such as a standardised questionnaire affidavit to establish the facts of the case. The Court is now to be regarded as part of a wider family justice system that puts more emphasis on people sorting out disputes about caring for children through access to out-of-court dispute resolution services. Key features of the reforms include:
Domestic Violence Changes
The maximum penalty for breaching a protection order has been increased from two years to three years imprisonment. The definition of domestic violence has been broadened to include financial and economic abuse, such as denying or limiting access to financial resources. Non-violence programmes have been made safer and more effective and there are wider powers to direct people to attend an assessment as well as a non-violence programme. People under a protection order can request provision of a safety programme at any time. There is also an increased onus on providers to report on the outcomes of non-violence programmes and to identify any ongoing safety concerns about those who have attended programmes.
Project Description
Given the large fraction of the public purse that is expended in the social policy domains, quality evidence to support appropriate policy development and formal evaluation of desired impacts is critical. Evaluative science and intervention research is particularly important in the implementation of social policy because the reality is that the nature of human systems is such that it is not possible to predict with certainty the direct effect and spill-over consequences of any one intervention. (Gluckman, 2013, p. 13)
The public good is undoubtedly advanced by knowledge-informed policy formation, evaluation and implementation. The challenge is how to do better in two related domains: the generation and application of knowledge to inform policy making, and the use of scientific approaches to the monitoring and evaluation of policy initiatives. (Gluckman, 2011, p. 3)
As advocated above by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, it is vital to monitor and evaluate public policy developments and legislative change in order to assess the consequences. In Australia and the United Kingdom family justice law reform has been accompanied by an acknowledged need for, commitment to, and investment in, evaluating the reforms (see Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007, 2009; Family Justice Review Panel, 2011). In their submission to the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, the Families Commission (2013) also asserted that, “If these proposals are implemented, it is imperative that the impact and outcomes for families and their children are evaluated. ... On-going evaluation is also important to monitor and assess whether the desired policy objectives are achieved and any unintended and unforeseen consequences are minimised” (p. 15).
This project is the first step in such an evaluation and involved the initial consultation and planning phase for a proposed research strategy to evaluate the 2014 New Zealand family law reforms. Specifically, this project consisted of the following components:
Annotated Bibliography
A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify: a) relevant New Zealand family law research; and b) evaluative research undertaken in the family law field domestically and internationally. This resulted in a database of 147 articles, reports and discussion documents (as listed Appendix A). The focus of this literature search was:
An annotated bibliography was completed for those articles that discussed empirical research that was either conducted in the family justice field in New Zealand or utilised or discussed evaluation methods that could be of relevance to this project. The topics, research designs and methods employed by the studies reviewed are summarised in Table 2 in Appendix B. This can be drawn upon to identify relevant methodologies and methods in the development of the next phase of the project.
Baseline New Zealand Family Law Research
Evaluations can utilise a variety of data sources including: available and compiled data that already exists in available data sets; data that is available but not compiled (for example, from agencies); and collectable but not available data (Coglianese, 2012).
No pre-reform baseline measures were specifically collected prior to the introduction of the Family Dispute Resolution Act 2013 for the purpose of evaluating the reforms. However, data already exists and is currently being collected in both available and compiled data sets and uncompiled data that could potentially allow pre- and post-reform comparisons. Such data sources include:
Relevant New Zealand data also exists in research publications including journal articles and research reports. The most comprehensive programme of research into the New Zealand family law system was conducted in the late 1980s-early 1990s by the then Department for Courts following the major reforms of 1980. This involved a series of studies ascertaining the perspectives of family law professionals and parents on the Family Court and what was then known as custody and access. Since then, there has been no large-scale research concerning the family justice system undertaken in New Zealand.
However, a number of studies[1] on the following aspects of child and family law have been conducted covering the following topics:
- Child-inclusive mediation (Goldson, 2006)
- Judicial approaches (Cochrane, 2005)
- Custody and access arrangements (Gollop et al., 2000)
- Children’s views (Robinson, 2010; Robinson & Henaghan, 2011)
- Children’s rights (Taylor et al., 2000)
A total of 64 publications discussing 49 empirical studies undertaken in New Zealand were reviewed. Much of this research involved small-scale studies that were predominately qualitative in nature. Generally, the studies were either about a specific aspect of the family justice system (e.g., Counsel for the Child, parenting orders), evaluated a specific programme or pilot (e.g., Parenting Through Separation), or focused on broader issues such as stepfamilies, post-separation issues or child support.
While these studies provide valuable information they are limited in their usefulness for providing pre-reform measures due to their:
In summary, there is limited existing
pre-reform data that could be used as baseline data for a comprehensive pre- and
post-reform
comparison of the impact of the reforms. Specific pre-reform
measures were not collected in New Zealand prior to the introduction
of the
Family Dispute Resolution Act 2013 and little data exists that could be used as
baseline measures for an evaluation of the
reforms. Our consultations with
stakeholders also revealed very little appetite for such comparisons to be made.
Rather, the view
expressed was that with the reforms now in place it was more
important to understand how well the new services are working, and where
any
modifications might be needed, rather than to compare the current system with
the previous one. However, pre- and post-reform
comparisons could be possible by
reviewing court files and/or examining the perspectives of family law
professionals on the family
justice system pre- and post-reform.
The existing
data does not provide an overall picture of separating families and the
different pathways they take to resolve parenting
disputes and the outcomes
associated with those pathways. In fact, a clear profile of separated families
does not exist in New Zealand
and proxies such as child support and census data
are used to provide estimates of the number of separated families or numbers of
children affected by parental separation (Families Commission,
2009).
Consultation with New Zealand Stakeholders
An important aspect of effective evaluation is engagement and consultation with relevant stakeholders who have an interest in the process and outcome of any evaluation, and providing them with an opportunity to contribute to the research strategy (Kelly, 2008; Rossi & Freeman, 1993). Extensive consultation and liaison with the key New Zealand stakeholders from the family justice sector was therefore a major part of our project in order to ascertain:
A Memorandum of Understanding exists between the New Zealand Law Foundation and the Ministry of Justice to establish a closer working relationship for their mutual benefit. This includes the provision for both organisations to assist each other with research projects. The Ministry’s central role in the 2014 reforms meant that their Research and Evaluation Team was planning to evaluate certain aspects of the reforms from 2015. This was to include a consultation process with key stakeholders during 2014. When the New Zealand Law Foundation approved our project, which also incorporated a consultation process, it was agreed that it made good sense for these consultations to be undertaken jointly by the University of Otago research team (Associate Professor Nicola Taylor, Megan Gollop and Professor Mark Henaghan) and the Ministry of Justice (Sarah Talboys, Senior Advisor, Research and Evaluation).
During the period August to October 2014, 29 people from 14
agencies/organisations in New Zealand were consulted. The stakeholders
consulted
included representatives from those currently implementing the reforms or with
an interest in them, including Government
departments, agencies, the Family
Court, family law professionals, academics and practitioners.
Consultations were undertaken with the following stakeholders:
The
Ministry of Justice
NZ Family Court
Families Commission
Office of the Children’s
Commissioner
Inland Revenue
Department
Family Law Section of the New Zealand Law
Society
Relationships Aotearoa
FairWay Resolution Limited
LEADR
AMINZ
Family Works Northern
Family Works Central
Family Court Report Writers
Family Law Academics
Robert
Ludbrook (Child Advocate)
Common Research Interests
Sector-level
strategising about the priority evaluation questions is an essential aspect of
social policy evaluation (Duignan, 2002).
Our consultation process led to a
number of common research interests being identified across the New Zealand
family justice sector.
These included:
Table 1 presents a list of topics that the stakeholder
consultations identified as being of particular interest to them in any
evaluation
of the 2014 reforms. These have been listed in order of the number of
groups who raised each issue. The key stakeholders who were
consulted raised
many issues and interests, but those presented in Table 1 were responses to
being asked directly what areas they
would like to see included in any
evaluation.
Table 1: Areas of evaluative research interest raised
during NZ consultations
Area of research interest
|
Number of stakeholder consultations where issue was
raised
|
---|---|
Family dispute resolution
|
8
|
Durability/sustainability of orders
|
7
|
Non-engagers/missing families
|
6
|
Children’s participation/voice
|
6
|
Workforce development/capacity
|
3
|
Knowledge/understanding/experiences
of new system |
3
|
Parenting through Separation
|
3
|
Pathways to outcomes
|
3
|
Efficacy of new system
|
3
|
Impact on children
|
3
|
Family violence
|
2
|
Private schemes/providers
|
2
|
Intersection with other systems
|
2
|
Preparatory counselling
|
2
|
Lawyer for the Child
|
2
|
Without notice track
|
2
|
Exemption certificates
|
2
|
Self-represented litigants
|
1
|
Hard to reach families
|
1
|
Attitude/behavioural shifts
|
1
|
Family Legal Advice Service
|
1
|
Māori/cultural issues
|
1
|
As shown in Table 1 the most common area that the sector would like to
see evaluated was Family Dispute Resolution, followed closely
by the durability
and sustainability of any orders or agreements made under the new system. Many
of the stakeholder groups also identified
the need for research about those
families who do not engage with the system (as outlined above) and
children’s participation
and voice (or lack of) within the new
system.
In addition, many stakeholders generated a number of specific
research questions that elaborate on their broader interests outlined above.
This level of detail will be most helpful when consideration is being given
to
specific aspects of future evaluative research topics. These questions relate
mainly to five areas of interest as follows:
Family Dispute Resolution
Orders/agreements – particularly in relation to durability/sustainability
Pathways for families
Workforce development/capacity
Counselling
Miscellaneous
Existing or Future Research Plans
During our consultations we also ascertained whether any research was being planned or undertaken in New Zealand that focused on the family justice sector and/or aspects of the reforms. This was important to identify as these projects could then be taken into account in the design of the strategy to evaluate the 2014 reforms and avoid duplication of effort by others. The consultation process identified the following projects:
Ministry of Justice
Stage one will involve a literature/document scan, consultations with stakeholders and fieldwork. The literature scan has commenced, the consultations occurred in September/October 2014 (jointly with the University of Otago research team), and the fieldwork is planned for early 2015, with the final write-up being completed mid-late 2015. The research on FDR will focus on how it is being implemented, how it is running, whether its objectives are being met (policy perspective), who it is working for and who it is not working for, and whether there are any unintended consequences (positive and negative). A case study approach (in four sites) will be used to obtain a qualitative picture of what is happening, including interviews with FDR participants and key informants (such as FDR providers, legal advice providers and preparatory counsellors). The Ministry may also conduct a national survey of FDR providers.
Family Works Northern
Family Law Section, Law Society
LEADR
Consultation with International Experts and Researchers
We were fortunate to have two highly experienced Australian researchers as consultants on the project. Dr Rae Kaspiew (Senior Research Fellow: Family Law, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne) and Associate Professor Bruce Smyth (ARC Future Fellow, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra) were both key players in the design and implementation of large-scale research evaluating the 2006 Australian family law reforms.
Australia
In October 2014 Nicola Taylor and Megan Gollop travelled to Australia to meet with a range of agencies, researchers, family law experts and key stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the 2006 and 2012 family law reforms and their evaluation. We are very grateful for the experience shared with us during the following consultations:
Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Relationships Australia, Victoria
Australian National University
Attorney General’s Department
Family & Relationship Services Australia
Family Law Researchers/Experts
England
While visiting the UK, Nicola Taylor also met with leading researchers on the Mapping Paths to Family Justice project at the University of Exeter on 28 November 2014 - Professor Anne Barlow (Professor of Family Law and Policy), Professor Liz Trinder (Professor of Socio-Legal Studies), and Jan Ewing (Research Associate). This ESRC-funded interdisciplinary project has provided critical evidence about the usage, experience and outcomes of the three different ADR forms of out-of-court dispute resolution in family law currently available in the UK: solicitor negotiation; mediation; and collaborative law. The project focused on answering the following questions:
Key Messages from the International Consultations
New
Zealand, like other jurisdictions, is grappling with the challenge of providing
an effective and efficient family justice system.
The international trend
towards out-of-court family dispute resolution is in response to this and
is being driven by several factors shared in common across different
jurisdictions: the benefits of early
intervention and consensual settlements,
litigation/Court as a last resort, and the desirability of reducing cost.
Australia introduced
significant family law reforms in 2006, while the timing of
those in England and Wales almost exactly matches our own changes here
in New
Zealand. The Children and Families Act 2014 implemented the Family Justice
Review recommendations agreed by the British Government
on 22 April 2014 (Family
Justice Review Panel, 2011; UK Ministry of Justice and Department for Education,
2012).
These international consultations in Australia and England
confirmed the importance of having an evaluative research strategy occurring
in
conjunction with law reforms and new programme or service delivery initiatives.
Australia invested heavily in both infrastructure
(for example, Family
Relationship Centres (FRCs)) and research as part of their 2006 reform package.
The Attorney-General’s
department contracted the Australian Institute of
Family Studies to undertake a large-scale programme of research and evaluation
that is continuing to pay dividends for their ongoing legal policy and practice
developments (see Figure 1 below for a map of the
scope and scale of the
evaluation).
Figure 1: Overview of data collection for the Australian
Institute of Family Studies evaluation (reproduced from Kaspiew et al.,
2009)
The Australian data has shown that a) around 70% of
separated couples manage to work out parenting arrangements themselves, and b)
the pathways taken by those who engage with out-of-court and in-court dispute
resolution processes. This enables the Australian Government
to tailor legal
policies and services to meet known needs within the parenting community and to
put the impact of any reform measures
into their wider context. Their
evaluations have not only examined the effect of their 2006 reforms, but also
served as a benchmark
for other policy and practice changes over time (for
example, with the current evaluation of the 2012 family violence reforms and
where these issues intersect with the family law system).
Likewise in
England, the ability to compare different types of dispute resolution modalities
has provided important information about
which approaches are best suited to
particular groups of clients. This ‘big-picture’ dimension is
currently missing in
New Zealand.
Our consultations in Australia also
revealed that their FDR system is continuing to evolve with a range of
approaches being trialled
and/or introduced regarding child participation, legal
advice, relationship property and child support initiatives. This is to enable
a
more holistic approach to parental separation to be provided for families within
Family Relationship Centres, professional services
and the courts. We can likely
expect similar developments in New Zealand as FDR becomes more embedded in our
dispute resolution processes.
Wellington Workshop
On
30 October 2014 the University of Otago research team hosted a half-day
workshop in Wellington with 30 people representing many of the agencies and
personnel we had consulted in New Zealand throughout August to October 2014. The
list of participants is in Appendix C, together
with the names of the 18 people
who sent their apologies. One of the international consultants to our project,
Dr Rae Kaspiew (AIFS,
Melbourne), delivered a keynote presentation highlighting
the methodologies and key findings from the evaluations of the Australian
2006
and 2012 family law reforms and their significance for New Zealand (see De Maio
et al., 2013; Kaspiew et al., 2009 2012, 2013;
Moloney et al., 2011; Qu et al.,
2014 in Appendix A). She also emphasized the interface between research, policy
and practice that
can be achieved when a robust evidence-base is in existence.
Those present at the workshop expressed their strong support for the
development
of a research strategy to evaluate our 2014 family law reforms and agreed with
the proposed direction it is taking.
Evaluation Research
Evaluation
is a broad term and there are numerous ways to describe and undertake it. It is
usually taken to mean the systematic acquisition
and assessment of information
in order to understand the consequences of an intervention, programme, policy,
initiative, or activity
(Kelly, 2008; Kettunun, 2011; Trochim, 2006). Evaluation
examines the structure, process, relationships, and products of programmes
or
projects at the individual and/or system level (Levin-Rozalis, 2003).
Evaluation research is a purposeful activity, undertaken to affect policy development, to shape the design and implementation of social interventions, and to improve the management of social programs. (Rossi & Freeman, 1993, p. 403)
A key aspect of any evaluation is to provide useful feedback to
those responsible for designing or implementing the programme or project under
consideration. The relevance and usefulness of
the feedback it provides is a key
indicator of its quality (Levin-Rozalis, 2003). Therefore, the primary goal of
an evaluation is
to inform decision-makers, stakeholders and the general public
whether programmes and policies have had the intended consequences
(Kettunun,
2011).
There are two major evaluation designs – formative evaluation and
summative evaluation (Duignan, 2002; Kettunun, 2011; Trochim,
2006) – with
a distinction also made between process and outcome evaluation (Duignan,
2002).
Formative evaluation is concerned with monitoring the way
in which a programme is implemented – how it is delivered, managed,
administered or operated
in order to improve the implementation process and/or
to identify problems or issues that need to be addressed to optimise the
programme
efficiency. Such evaluations can assess whether the programme is being
delivered as intended (implementation evaluation) or the process
of delivering
the programme (process evaluation). Four major data sources inform a
monitoring/formative evaluation: direct observation;
service records (such as
case management systems); data from service providers; and information from the
programme participants (Rossi
& Freeman, 1993).
Process
evaluation examines the process of delivering the programme by
describing and documenting the process to assist in understanding it and
interpreting
the programme’s outcomes (Duignan, 2002).
Summative
evaluation examines the impact or outcome of the programme or initiative.
This could be an assessment of whether the programme achieved what
it was
designed to do against specified targets or stated goals (outcome evaluation) or
an examination of the overall impact of the
evaluation (impact evaluation)
including both intended and unintended consequences. These outcomes and impacts
can be short, intermediate
or long-term and may also be hierarchical relating to
impacts at the individual, community or policy level (Australian Institute
of
Family Studies, 2007; Duignan, 2002).
These evaluation types can be
combined to form a three-way evaluation typology – formative, process and
impact/outcome –
that can be related to the stages or life-cycle of a
programme or intervention as demonstrated in Figure 2 reproduced from Duignan
(2002, p.183 ).
Figure 2: The relationship between types of evaluation
and stages in the programme life cycle
|
|
|
Start
|
Middle
|
Finish
|
|
Programme Life Cycle
|
|
|
|
|
Formative
|
Process
|
Impact/Outcome
|
|
Type of Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
Improving Programme
|
Describing Programme
|
Measuring Outcomes
|
When assessing a programme’s impact or outcomes, clear objectives of the programme must be articulated and the programme must be implemented as intended (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). The formal goals of policy or practice reform can be a good starting point for an evaluation, but such goals are not always precisely articulated (Kettunun, 2011), in which case the evaluator must be able to establish a set of objectives (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). For example, in the 2006 Australian family law reform evaluation, “big picture indicators” were derived from the reform objectives, which were then framed as specific evaluation questions (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007).
The critical issue in impact evaluation is establishing “whether or not the program produces desired levels of effects over and above what would have occurred either without the intervention or with an alternative intervention” (Rossi & Freeman, 1993, p. 220). Determining the impact of a programme requires the evaluator to establish causality i.e., demonstrating that the measured impact was due to the programme (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). The gold standard of impact evaluation is a randomised control study as this is the most powerful research design to establish causality. Such a design compares the outcomes for a randomly selected group of those who had participated in the programme/intervention with a randomly selected control group of those who did not participate. However, using such an experimental model is a challenge for evaluators for many reasons, including factors such as the impracticability of such an approach, ethical concerns and time and cost constraints. It is also difficult to control and isolate findings that are directly attributable to the social interventions/programmes from other confounding processes and influences. For these reasons, it is often impossible for an evaluation to utilise the ‘ideal’ evaluation research design and evaluators need to choose the best possible design taking into account factors such as feasibility, practicality, usefulness and credibility (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).
A variety of other quasi-experimental research designs can be employed, such as non-randomised constructed-control designs using matched controls, either ex ante (prior to intervention) or ex post (after the start of the intervention). When control groups are not possible, repeated measures of participants before and after an intervention can also assess the impact of a programme or policy.
More realistic approaches to evaluation highlight the importance of understanding not only the impact of a programme, but also the process or mechanism of social change leading to the observed impacts. A process evaluation can provide a detailed description of what happens when an intervention is implemented (Kelly, 2008). The aim of such an evaluative approach is therefore to understand the relationship between the context, mechanism of change and the outcome (Kelly, 2008). Qualitative research methods (such as interviews, focus groups, document analysis, observations etc.) are particularly useful in understanding how an intervention has impact (Kelly, 2008). Qualitative approaches are also helpful in ascertaining people’s experiences of any intervention and their views of the impact of the intervention on their lives.
Formative evaluation is usually conducted throughout programme delivery, but
summative evaluation is most often conducted at the end.
It can be beneficial to
conduct both types of evaluation in order to gain a deeper and broader
understanding and to set the findings
in context. For instance, studies that
monitor a programme’s implementation using a formative evaluation design
are important
to understand and interpret the findings of a summative
evaluation. If little or no impact is found in a summative evaluation, a
formative evaluation may reveal that the programme or policy was implemented
incorrectly or incompletely, thereby explaining the
lack of impact or any
unintended effects (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). A mixed method design, employing
both quantitative and qualitative
research methods and data collection, and
undertaking both formative and summative evaluations will therefore provide a
comprehensive
evaluation design.
Timing of an evaluation
The timing of an evaluation is an important consideration. For feedback to decision-makers and programme implementers to be relevant and useful an evaluation ideally needs to be relatively immediate. A formative evaluation should therefore occur within a timespan that will allow the findings and conclusions to contribute to necessary changes in implementation and delivery to optimise the effectiveness and impact of the programme (Levin-Rozalis, 2003). However, impact evaluations should be conducted when the initiative has been in place long enough for any implementation issues to have been resolved (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). However, if the programme is designed to address a serious or important issue then it is desirable to learn if it is not working sooner rather than later in order to devise a more suitable alternative (Coglianese, 2012). Therefore, an effective evaluation strategy recognises that evaluation can occur across a programme’s entire life cycle and is not limited to only outcome evaluation at the end of the programme (Duignan, 2002).
The Way Forward
While
the goal of both evaluation and research is to gain knowledge and understanding,
evaluation differs from research in that its
focus is on using that knowledge
and understanding to provide feedback on a concrete programme, project or
initiative. The quality
of an evaluation lies in whether it provides sufficient
feedback to all levels of decision makers (Levin-Rozalis, 2003). The 2014
New
Zealand family justice reforms impacted on a wide range of families,
practitioners and decision makers at many different levels.
A suite of several
evaluative research studies is therefore likely to be necessary in order to
provide effective and pertinent feedback
to all relevant parties and
stakeholders. This project has provided the platform on which to co-ordinate and
develop this evaluative
research strategy so that any future investment of
funding, time and skill in this field can be optimised to best effect.
In essence, there are two levels of evaluation possible, each with
different objectives and scope:
1. Smaller-scale studies
evaluating particular individual components of the new family justice system at
the individual programme/service level. Such studies
are warranted for specific
programmes, services or activities, such as:
These services could then
benefit from more immediate feedback on their role and activities,
accessibility, client satisfaction, and
so forth, in order to ascertain a) how
well the service is operating, b) whether there are any implementation glitches
that need
attention, and c) how to improve service delivery to better meet
client and practitioner needs. Evaluation studies such as these
can incorporate
both formative and summative aspects. Formative evaluation could assess how the
services/programmes are implemented,
delivered and operated, and how effective
these processes are. Summative evaluations could examine what outcomes the
services are
achieving and if they result in any unintended consequences. Both
types of evaluations could utilise and collect various types of
data such as
that collected or held by agencies and service providers
(programme/administrative data); client feedback; and surveys
(questionnaires,
focus groups or interviews) with clients, staff/practitioners, service
providers, and other professionals.
2. Larger-scale, more long-term,
research evaluation taking a broader ‘whole system’ approach to
evaluate the reforms as an entire package. Again, such evaluations could be both
formative and summative. A formative evaluation
should involve an examination of
whether the programmes and services were being operated in accordance with the
legislative and policy
intent of the reforms (Australian Institute of Family
Studies, 2007). This could involve an examination of how the entire package
was
rolled out, implemented and administered and could incorporate data from the
smaller scale projects outlined above on how specific
programmes/services are
operating to ensure that they are being operated and implemented as
intended.
A summative evaluation of the impact of the reforms could be
approached in many different ways. An impact evaluation could examine
the
consequences of the reforms (both intended and unintended). Outcomes could be
examined in a variety of ways as illustrated by
the range of research questions
provided during the consultations with stakeholders detailed earlier. This could
be at the individual
level (e.g., does FDR change how parents deal with
conflict?; what are the outcomes for children?) as well as examining the impact
of the reforms on professional bodies and on systems/organisations (e.g., the
Family Court).
An outcome evaluation could also assess outcomes against
the objectives of the reforms as outlined on page 3. For example, have the
2014
reforms made dispute resolution for separated families a faster and less
expensive, acrimonious and adversarial experience for
families; has the number
of cases coming to court declined; is the Family Court more efficient and
effective; and so forth?
In their initial evaluation framework to
evaluate the 2006 law reforms the Australian Institute of Family Studies (2007)
advocated
that to evaluate the reform package as a whole, data should be
collected on:
They proposed that this
could be achieved by an examination of the new system from the perspectives of
families, service providers,
and family law professionals, as well as an
examination of changes in community attitudes and behaviours relating to the
family justice
system.
There was also considerable interest amongst the stakeholders we consulted regarding the importance of gaining a broad-picture view of the family justice field from these multiple perspectives and also by incorporating both those families who engaged with the family justice system and those who did not. The benefits for socio-legal policy and practice of understanding the different pathways that family members take in seeking to resolve their parenting (and related) disputes was highly evident in Australia.
Proposed Cohort Study
We therefore propose that, in addition to the possible small-scale evaluation projects that various agencies and professional bodies are likely to undertake themselves, consideration be given to the development of a longitudinal cohort study of separating parents.
A cohort study is a type of observational study that observes the effect of something without influencing it. Such studies are useful in evaluative research when randomised control trials are not possible or ethical, such as is the case for evaluating NZ family law reforms.
A cohort is a group of people who have some feature, characteristic or experience in common (for instance, separating parents). Cohort studies can be retrospective or prospective. A retrospective design looks backwards into the past to account for what is happening in the present, whereas a prospective design follows the cohort over time from the present into the future, i.e., it is longitudinal in nature with waves of data being collected over time. Prospective cohort studies are generally regarded as superior to retrospective or cross-sectional studies (where groups of people are compared at one point in time).
Such a design would involve recruiting a population-based sample of separating parents with dependent children from across New Zealand and following them over time, collecting data at various points in the future. This could involve interviews or surveys, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. As highly relevant policy groups are often small in number, a large sample would be needed to capture enough of these parents in order to gain a complete picture of separating families. More in-depth understandings could also be gleaned from qualitative interviews with a subset of the larger cohort.
Prospective cohort studies can be expensive and time-consuming and, due to their longitudinal nature, they do take time to generate useful data. However, this is an important feature of the study design as law and policy reform can have short-, medium- and long-term consequences. Therefore, following people over time captures those longer-term impacts that may not be apparent if reforms are evaluated at only one point in time soon after their introduction.
A major advantage of such a study is that it enables the impact of the reforms to be seen within the wider context of what is happening in the general population of separating parents. A cohort study would capture the range of pathways that separated families take – privately, in out-of-court FDR, and in the Family Court, and the outcomes for families associated with different pathways. It would also allow comparison of those families who engage with the family justice system and those who remain outside it, and the reasons for this. It would also allow us to find out more about those families who have never utilised dispute resolution processes, or who may have previously done so but are not engaging now that the reforms are in place. Multiple pathways and their associated outcomes can be identified for separating families and would potentially enable identification of pathways that are more or less effective for particular families and circumstances.
Understanding post-separation pathways for families was a common research
interest that emerged strongly from our consultations and
was re-emphasised at
the Wellington Workshop at the end of October 2014. Such a study would therefore
provide a ‘big picture’
view of what is happening for all
separated parents in NZ – not just those that engage with the family
justice system. For instance, does a significant percentage
of New Zealand
separated couples work out their own post-separation parenting arrangements, as
occurs in Australia? Currently we
do not know the answer to this, yet clearly
this will have great significance for the family justice sector.
We strongly
agree with the Australian Institute of Family Studies (2007) that:
Identifying the effects of the effects of the reform package on children will be very difficult without a longitudinal design. ... Until longitudinal research that specifically focuses on parents’ pathways, and the reasons behind their decisions, is conducted, it is difficult to gauge how the family law system is operating as a whole, and how families can be helped to choose the best pathway for their particular needs. (p. 22)
Such a design would allow us to follow people through the system and examine the choices they make about utilising family justice services, the reasons for these choices, and their experience and satisfaction with the services they engage with. Understanding the pathways that separating families take over time then enables resources to be directed to where they are needed most, avoids duplication of effort and assists policy development, service delivery and workforce planning initiatives. As well, it could tell us about families’ engagement with other services outside the family law system, such as social services, welfare, health, education, iwi and NGOs and also the intersection between these sectors and services.
Another benefit that could accrue is information on some of the broader issues facing separated families - including the relationship between decisions about parenting arrangements and child support and/or the division of relationship property. While these are interlinked, they are currently dealt with separately in the new system. Yet, as we have seen in Australia, FDR and the family justice system is evolving to find ways of better accommodating these aspects within service modalities that cater to the wider needs of separating families.
Such a study would also allow comparisons between subgroups within the cohort, comparing families who utilised a particular service within the system with those that did not. For example, comparing those that used FLAS and those that did not. This approximates a quasi-experimental impact evaluation design that enables the evaluation of individual components of the reforms or particular services (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).
We appreciate that the nature and scale of the proposed cohort study will require a collaborative approach with multiple partners and the obtaining of the necessary resources to undertake it. However, it is our view that the willing co-operation of the many stakeholders consulted throughout this project provides a strong base on which to develop such a study for the benefit of the family justice field. Depending on funding, waves of data collection could occur over time and the findings will help put the existing and planned studies and current agency data into context as well as informing future research. Such a study would also provide benchmark data for other policy and legislative changes in the future.
The timing of any evaluation is an important consideration. As discussed earlier, and as noted in several of our consultations, for those implementing aspects of the reforms and delivering services, more immediate feedback is important to optimise the effectiveness and impact of the services and make any necessary changes. However, the larger-scale ‘whole system’ evaluation should only be conducted once any implementation and/or delivery issues have been resolved and the reforms have bedded-in. Advice received from our project consultants Associate Professor Bruce Smyth and Dr Rae Kaspiew, was that a stand-down period of at least one year, but ideally two years, was optimal before any evaluation was commenced, particularly in relation to collecting parent data. It would be desirable to commence with a smaller scale pilot study with a diverse mix of recently separated parents (perhaps utilising focus groups or individual interviews) in order to get a feel for the data to inform the design of the larger cohort study.
Conclusion
There is a myriad of ways to evaluate aspects of the reforms and multiple evaluation studies, especially smaller-scale ones, are likely to be conducted in parallel and over time by different provider groups. Our research team is very willing to continue to provide leadership and co-ordination regarding the evaluative strategy. We are also very happy to provide advice to those who wish to design and undertake their own research, and to partner with them as desired. We are committed to a planned and co-ordinated ‘whole system’ approach and believe that the existing and planned initiatives will make an important contribution to better understanding the effectiveness of the reforms and client and practitioner perspectives on the dispute resolution services now available. However, it is clear that new larger-scale research needs to be initiated with multi-partner collaboration and funding. We can never hope to emulate the Australian investment in family law reform evaluation, but nevertheless the next phase of this project, utilising a pilot study followed by a larger-scale cohort study, has the potential to provide an important evidence base to inform future decisions by policy-makers, funders, practitioners and disputing couples. To progress this initiative it will be vital for further consultation to occur between our research team, the New Zealand Law Foundation, the Ministry of Justice and the Families Commission[2] with a view to building a collaborative multi-sector interdisciplinary team to explore funding, methodological approaches and project feasibility in terms of scale, design and timing.
References
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2007). A framework for the evaluation of the family law reform package. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Boshier, P., Beatson, Clark, Henshall, Priestley, J., & Seymour, F. (1993). A review of the Family Court - A report for the Principal Family Court Judge. Auckland: New Zealand Family Court.
Coglianese, C. (2012). Measuring regulatory performance: Evaluating the impact of regulation and regulatory policy. Expert paper No. 1, OECD.
Duignan, P. (2002). Building social policy evaluation capacity. Social Policy of Journal of New Zealand, 19, 179-194.
Families Commission. (2009). What separating parents need when making care arrangements for their children. Issues Paper 01. Wellington: Families Commission.
Families Commission. (2013). Submission by the Families Commission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. Wellington: Families Commission.
Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill 2013
Family Dispute Resolution Act and Regulations 2013
Family Justice Review Panel. (2011). Family Justice Review: Final report. London: Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Welsh Government.
Gluckman, P. (2011). Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: A discussion paper. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.
Gluckman, P. (2013). The role of evidence in policy formation and intervention. A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.
Kelly, M. (2008). Evaluation research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 304-307). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kettunen, P. (2011). Evaluation research. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser & L. Morlino (Eds.), International encyclopedia of political science (pp. 851-854). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Law Commission. (2002). Family Court dispute resolution: A discussion paper (Preliminary paper 47). Wellington: Law Commission.
Law Commission. (2003). Dispute resolution in the Family Court (Report 82). Wellington: Law Commission. [see www.lawcom.govt.nz]
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2003). Evaluation and research: Differences and similarities. The Canandian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18(2), 1-31.
Ministry of Justice. (2003). Government response to Law Commission Report on Dispute Resolution in the Family Court. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Reviewing the Family Court: A public consultation paper. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Reviewing the Family Court: Case file sample. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Reviewing the Family Court: ‘Parenting Through Separation’ participant feedback. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill FAQs. Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Family_Court_Proceedings_Reform_Bill_FAQs.pdf
Office of the Minister of Justice. (2012). Family Court Review Cabinet Paper – Proposals for reform. Wellington: Minister of Justice and Cabinet Social Policy Committee.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach. London: Sage Publications.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Introduction to evaluation. Web Center for Social Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php
UK Ministry of Justice and Department for Education. (2012). The Government response to the Family Justice Review: A system with children and families at its heart. London: The Stationery Office Ltd.
Appendix A: Bibliography
Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill 2013
Family Dispute Resolution Act and Regulations 2013
Akin Ojelabi, L., Fisher, T., Cleak, H., Vernon, A., & Balvin, N. (2011). A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: Findings about access, retention and outcomes from the evaluation of a Family Relationship Centre. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 220-232.
Allen Consulting Group. (2013). Research on Family Support Program family law services: Final report. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.
Armstrong, S. (2011). Developing culturally reflexive practice in family dispute resolution. ADRJ, 30, 30-40.
Armstrong, S. M. (2006). Evaluating law reform. University of Western Sydney Law Review, 10, 157-170.
Armstrong, S. M. (2011). Encouraging conversations about culture: Supporting culturally responsive family dispute resolution. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 233-248.
Atkin, B. (2014, August). Upheaval in the Family Court of New Zealand: “User pays” and privatisation. World Conference of the International Society of Family Law.
Attorney General’s Department and Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2010). Implementation of the Family Relationship Centres initiative. Barton, ACT: Australian National Audit Office.
Attorney General’s Department and Relationships Australia (QLD). (2011). Development and evaluation of online family dispute resolution capabilities. QLD: Relationships Australia.
Australian Government. (2005). A new family law system: Government response to Every picture tells a story. Response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into child-custody arrangements in the event of family separation. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2007). A framework for the evaluation of the family law reform package. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010). Family violence - A national legal response (ALRC Report 114; NSW Law Reform Commission report 128). Sydney: Australian Law Reform Commission.
Bacon, B., & McKenzie, B. (2001). Best practices in parent information and education programs after separation and divorce. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba.
Bacon, B. L. (2004). Evaluation of the Saskatchewan Justice Parenting After Separation/Divorce Program: Final report. Winnipeg, Canada: Faculty of Social Work, University of Manitoba.
Bacon, B. L., & McKenzie, B. (2004). Parent education after separation/divorce: Impact of the level of parental conflict on outcomes. Family Court Review, 42(1), 85-98.
Bagshaw, D., Brown, T., Wendt, S., Campbell, A., McInnes, E., Tinning, B., et al. (2010). Family violence and family law in Australia: The experiences and views of children and adults from families who separated post-1995 and post-2006. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Barlow, A., Hunter, R., Smithson, J., & Ewing, J. (2014). Mapping paths to family justice: Briefing paper & report on key findings. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, Economic & Social Research Council, and University of Kent.
Bartlett, E. (2006). Family Court statistics 2004. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Barwick, H., & Gray, A. (2007). Family mediation - Evaluation of the pilot. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Barwick, H., Gray, A., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process evaluation. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Barwick, H., Gray, A., & Macky, R. (2003). Characteristics associated with the early identification of complex Family Court custody cases. Wellington: Department for Courts.
Bordow, S., & Gibson, J. (1994). Evaluation of the Family Court mediation service. Melbourne: Family Court of Australia.
Brown, T. (2010). What about the children? Parenting post separation and divorce. Melbourne: Department of Social Work, Monash University.
Carson, R., Fehlberg, B., & Millward, C. (2013). Parents’ experiences of Family Dispute Resolution and family law services in Australia following shared parenting reform: Recent qualitative findings. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 25(4), 406-424.
Caruana, C. (2010). Dispute resolution choices. A comparison of collaborative law, family dispute resolution and family law conferencing services. Family Relationships Quarterly, 15, 12-15.
Cashmore, J., Parkinson, P., Weston, R., Patulny, R., Redmond, G., Qu, L., et al. (2010). Shared care parenting arrangements since the 2006 family law reforms: Report to the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
Chetwin, A., & Lee, A. (2003, March). Getting the most out of programme evaluation: The evaluation of New Zealand's domestic violence legislation. Paper presented at the ‘Evaluation in Crime and Justice: Trends and Methods’ conference, Canberra Australia.
Cochrane, M. (2005). Judicial approaches to children’s involvement in New Zealand Family Court processes in 2005. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for a Postgraduate Diploma in Child Advocacy, Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Colmar Brunton (2009). New Zealand child support arrangements. A research report prepared for the Families Commission: Kōmihana ā whānau. Auckland: Colmar Brunton.
Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council. (2012). Scoping report for the development of property and spousal maintenance competencies in family dispute resolution. Sydney: Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council.
Coombes, L., Morgan, M., & McGray, S. (2007). Counting on protection: A statistical description of the Waitakere Family Violence Court. Palmerston North: Massey University.
De Maio, J., Kaspiew, R., Smart, D., Dunstan, J., & Moore, S. (2012). Survey of recently separated parents: A study of parents who separated prior to the implementation of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Matters) Act 2011. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2013). Evaluation framework - Place based income management, Deloitte Access Economics.
Department of Justice. (1993). Family Court custody and access research report 6: A survey of Family Court judges. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Dewar, J. (2010). Can the centre hold? Reflections on two decades of family law reform in Australia. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 22(4), 377-386.
Families Commission. (2009). What separating parents need when making care arrangements for their children. Issues Paper 01. Wellington: Families Commission.
Families Commission. (2013). Submission by the Families Commission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill.
Family Justice Review Panel. (2011). Family Justice Review: Final report. London: Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Welsh Government.
Goldson, J. (2006). Hello, I’m a voice, let me talk: Child-inclusive mediation in family separation. Innovative Practice Report No 1/06. Wellington: Families Commission.
Gollop, M., Smith, A. B., & Taylor, N. J. (2000). Children’s involvement in custody and access arrangements after parental separation. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 12(4), 383-399.
Gollop, M., & Taylor, N. (2012). New Zealand children and young people’s perspectives on relocation after parental separation. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and Childhood Studies. Current legal issues (Vol. 14, pp. 219-242). London: Oxford University Press.
Gollop, M., Taylor, N. J., Smith, A. B., Gaffney, M., Gold, M., & Henaghan, M. (1997). Facilitating access: Children’s and lawyers’ perspectives. Law Talk, Dec, 28-30.
Gollop, M. M., Taylor, N. J., & Smith, A. B. (2000). Children perspectives of their parents’ separation. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices: Research, policy and practice (pp. 134-156). Auckland: Pearson Education.
Graham, A., Fitzgerald, R. M., & Phelps, R. (2009). The changing landscape of family law: exploring the promises and possibilities for children’s participation in Australian family relationship centres. Report to Interrelate Family Centres. Lismore, NSW: School of Education, Southern Cross University.
Gray, C., Verdieck, J., Smith, E. D., & Freed, K. (1997). Making it work: An evaluation of court-mandated parenting workshops for divorcing families. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35(3), 280-292.
Hall, G. (1989). Family Court custody and access research report 1: The welfare of the child: A literature review. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Hall, G., & Lee, A. (1994). Family Court custody and access research report 8: Discussion paper. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Hall, G., Lee, A., & Harland, A. (1993). Family Court custody and access research report 7: The lawyers’ perspective. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Harland, A. (1991). Family Court custody and access research report 4: Custody and access orders: Interviews with parents about their court experience. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Harland, A. (1991). Family Court custody and access research report 5: Counselling co-ordinators’ group discussion. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Henaghan, M., Taylor, N. J., Smith, A. B., Gollop, M., Gaffney, M., & Gold, M. (1998). Children’s views on their parents’ separation. Butterworths Family Law Journal, 2(11), 277-285.
Hong, B. (1991). Family Court custody and access research report 3: The views of Counsel for the Child, specialist report writers and Department of Social Welfare report writers. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Irving, H. H., & Benjamin, M. (1992). An evaluation of process and outcome in a private family mediation service. Mediation Quarterly, 10(1), 35-55.
Kaspiew, R., Carson, R., Moore, S., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., & Horsfall, B. (2013). Independent children’s lawyers study: Final report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., Carson, R., Moore, S., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., & Horsfall, B. (2014). Independent children’s lawyers study: Final report (2nd edition). Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.
Kaspiew, R., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., & Horsfall, B. (2012). Evaluation of a pilot of legally assisted and supported family dispute resolution in family violence cases: Final report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., et al. (2009a). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., et al. (2009b). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: Summary report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., et al. (2011). The AIFS evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: A summary. Family Matters, 86, 8-18.
Kelly, J. B. (2013). Getting it right for families in Australia: Commentary on the April 2013 special issue on family relationship centres. Family Court Review, 51(2), 278-285.
Knaggs, T., & Harland, A. (2009a). The Parenting Hearings Programme pilot: Evaluation report. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Knaggs, T., & Harland, A. (2009b). The Parenting Hearings Programme pilot: Evaluation. Technical report. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Knaggs, T., Leahy, F., Soboleav, N., & Ong, S. (2008). The Waitakere and Manukau Family Violence Courts: An evaluation summary. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
KPMG. (2008). Family dispute resolution services in legal aid commissions: Evaluation report. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.
Law Commission. (2002). Family Court dispute resolution: A discussion paper. Wellington: Law Commission.
Lee, A. (1990). Family Court custody and access research report 2: A survey of parents who have obtained a dissolution. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Legal Aid and Family Services. (1996). Research/evaluation of family mediation practice and the issue of violence. Canberra: Attorney General’s Department.
Lodge, J., & Alexander, M. (2010). Views of adolescents in separated families: A study of adolescents’ experiences after the 2006 reforms to the family law system. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Loomis, T. L. (1985). An evaluation of the children’s advocate scheme pilot in the Auckland Children and Young Persons Court. Wellington: Department of Justice.
Macky, R., & Gray, A. (2002). Processes and outcomes of Family Court custody applications. Wellington: Department for Courts.
Maxwell, G. M. (1989). Family Court counselling services and the changing New Zealand family. Wellington: Policy and Research Division: Department of Justice.
Maxwell, G. M., Pritchard, R., & Robertson, J. (1990). A counsellor’s perspective on the Family Court and its clients. Wellington: Department of Justice.
Maxwell, G. M., & Robertson, J. (1994a). Moving apart: A study of the role of Family Court counselling services. An overview of the findings and their policy implications. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Maxwell, G. M., & Robertson, J. (1994b). Moving apart: A study of the role of Family Court counselling services. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
Maxwell, G. M., Robertson, J., & Vincent, P. (1994). Deciding about the children after separation: A client’s perspective on the contribution of the Family Court. Wellington: Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice.
McArthur, M., Thomson, L., Woodward, M., Barker, J., Layton, M., & Winkworth, G. (2011). Evaluation of the Supporting Children after Separation program and Post Separation Cooperative Parenting programs. Dickson, Australia: Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University.
McIntosh, J. E., & Long, C. M. (2006). Children beyond dispute: A prospective study of outcomes from Child Focused and Child Inclusive post-separation family dispute resolution. Melbourne: Family Transitions/LaTrobe University.
McIntosh, J. E., Long, C. M., & Wells, Y. D. (2009). Children beyond dispute: A four year follow up study of outcomes from Child Focused and Child Inclusive post-separation family dispute resolution. Melbourne: Family Transitions.
Ministry of Justice. (2009). Family Court Statistics in New Zealand 2006 and 2007. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2010). Family Court Statistics: An overview of Family Court Statistics in New Zealand 2004 to 2008. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011a). Reviewing the Family Court: A summary. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (2011b). Reviewing the Family Court: A public consultation paper. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011c). Reviewing the Family Court: Case file sample. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2011d). Reviewing the Family Court: "Parenting Through Separation" participant feedback. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (2012). Summary of responses of Family Court users to reviewing the Family Court - a questionnaire. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2014a). Family legal advice service: Operational policy for providing early legal advice for disputes under the Care of Children Act 2004. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2014b). Family dispute resolution: Operating guidelines for Family Dispute Resolution suppliers. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2014c). Terms of reference: Family Justice Implementation Advisory Group. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice and Department of Education. (2012). The Government response to the Family Justice Review: A system with children and families at its heart. London: The Stationery Office.
Mitchell, D., & Chapman, P. (2006). Pathways through parental separation. Innovative Practice Fund No 5/09. Wellington: Families Commission.
Moloney, L. (2008). Violence allegations in parenting disputes: Reflections on court-based decision making before and after the 2006 Australian family law reforms. Journal of Family Studies, 14(2-3), 254-270.
Moloney, L. (2011). Family mediation: Confidence, culture and cooperation. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 178-185.
Moloney, L., Fisher, T., Love, A., & Ferguson, S. (1995). Federally funded family mediation in Melbourne: Outcomes, costs and client satisfaction. Canberra: Attorney General’s Department.
Moloney, L., Fisher, T., Love, A., & Ferguson, S. (1996). Managing differences: Federally funded family mediation in Sydney: Outcomes, costs and client satisfaction. Canberra: Attorney General’s Department.
Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., De Maio, J., & Deblaquiere, J. (2013). Family relationship centres: Partnerships with legal assistance services. Family Court Review, 51(2), 250-267.
Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., Hand, K., & Horsfall, B. (2011a). Evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre legal assistance partnerships program. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., Hand, K., & Horsfall, B. (2011b). The Family Relationship Centre Legal Assistance Services Partnerships Program: Evolution and evaluation. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 258-277.
Moloney, L., Qu, L., Hand, K., De Maio, J., Kaspiew, R., Weston, R., et al. (2010). Mandatory dispute resolution and the 2006 family law reforms: Use, outcomes, links to other pathways, and the impact of family violence. Journal of Family Studies, 16(3), 192-196.
Moloney, L., Qu, L., Weston, R., & Hand, K. (2013). Evaluating the work of Australia’s family relationship centre: Evidence from the first 5 years. Family Court Review, 51(2), 234-249.
Morgan, A., Boxall, H., Terer, K., & Harris, N. (2012). Evaluation of alternative dispute resolution initiatives in the care and protection jurisdiction of the NSW Children’s Court. AIC Reports. Research and Public Policy Series, 118. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Morgan, M., Coombes, L., & McGray, S. (2007). An evaluation of the Waitakere Family Violence Court protocols. Palmerston North: Massey University and WAVES.
Morgan, M., Coombes, L., Te Hiwi, E., & McGray, S. (2007). Accounting for safety: A sample of women victims’ experiences of safety through the Waitakere Family Violence Court. Palmerston North: Massey University.
Office of Minister of Justice & Cabinet Social Policy Committee. (n.d.). Family Court Review - Proposals for reform. Wellington: Office of the Minister of Justice.
Parkinson, P. (2006). Keeping in contact: the role of family relationship centres in Australia. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 18(2), 157-174.
Pidgeon, S. (2013). From policy to implementation - how family relationships centres became a reality. Family Court Review, 51(2), 224-233.
Pitama, D., Ririnui, G., & Mikaere, A. (2002). Guardianship, custody and access: Maori perspectives and experiences. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Pryor, J. (2004). Stepfamilies and resilience. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Pryor, J. (2012). Parenting orders in the Family Court. Final report for the Law Foundation. Wellington: Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families, Victoria University.
Pryor, J., & Major, E. (2012). Review of Family Court: the views of Family Court Professionals. Wellington: Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families, Victoria University.
Qu, L., & Weston, R. (2010). Parenting dynamics after separation: A follow-up study of parents who separated after the 2006 family law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Qu, L., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., & Dunstan, J. (2014). Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.
Research and Evaluation, Department for Courts. (2003). A statistical view of Guardianship Act cases. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Robertson, J. (2014). Addressing the challenges of stepfamily life. Report No 8/14. Wellington: Families Commission.
Robertson, J., & Pryor, J. (2009). Evaluation of the ‘Parenting through separation’ programme. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Robertson, J., Pryor, J., & Moss, J. (2008). Putting the kids first: Caring for children after separation. Research Report No 2/08. Wellington: Families Commission.
Robertson, J. P., & Pryor, J. (2011). Evaluation of an information program for separating parents. Journal of Family Studies, 17, 24-35.
Robertson, N., Busch, R., D’Souza, R., Lam Sheung, F., Anand, R., Balzer, R., et al. (2007a). Living at the cutting edge. Women’s experiences of protection orders. Volume 1: The women’s stories. Hamilton: School of Law and the Maori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Robertson, N., Busch, R., D’Souza, R., Lam Sheung, F., Anand, R., Balzer, R., et al. (2007b). Living at the cutting edge. Women’s experiences of protection orders. Volume 2: What’s to be done? A critical analysis of statutory and practice approaches to domestic violence. Hamilton: School of Law and the Maori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Robertson, N., Busch, R., D'Souza, R., Lam Sheung, F., Anand, R., Balzer, R., et al. (2007c). Living at the cutting edge. Women’s experiences of protection orders. Executive summary. Hamilton: School of Law and the Maori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Robinson, A. (2010). Children: Heard but not listened to? An analysis of children’s views in decision making under S6 of the Care of Children Act 2004. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Robinson, A., & Henaghan, M. (2011). Children: Heard but not listened to? An analysis of children’s views under s 6 of the Care of Children Act 2004. New Zealand Family Law Journal, 7(2), 39-35.
Roguski, M., Duckworth, S., Chauvel, F., & Guy, C. (2008). Reaching out: Who New Zealanders turn to for relationship support. Research Report No 5/08. Wellington: Families Commission.
Shifflett, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1999). A program for educating parents about the effects of divorce and conflict on children: An initial evaluation. Family Relations, 48(1), 79-89.
Sieppert, J. D., Lybarger, D. S., Bertrand, L. D., & Hornick, J. P. (1999). An evaluation of Alberta’s parenting after separation seminars. Calgary, Canada: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.
Singer, J. B. (2009). Dispute resolution and the postdivorce family: Implications of a paradigm shift. Family Court Review, 47(3), 363-370.
Smith, A., & Gollop, M. (2001a). Children’s perspectives on access visits. Butterworths Family Law Journal, June, 259-266.
Smith, A., & Gollop, M. (2001b). What children think separating parents should know. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 23-31.
Smith, A. B., Taylor, N. J., Gollop, M. M., Gaffney, M., Gold, M., & Henaghan, M. (1997). Access and other post-separation issues: A qualitative study. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.
Smith, M., Banbury, E., & Ong, S. (2009). Self-represented litigants: An exploratory study of litigants in person in the New Zealand criminal summary and family jurisdictions. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Smyth, B., Chisholm, R., Rodgers, B., & Son, V. (2014). Legislating for shared-time parenting after parental separation: Insights from Australia? Law and Contemporary Problems, 77, 109-149.
Smyth, B., Rodgers, B., Son, V., Allen, L., & Vnuk, M. (2012). Separated parents’ knowledge of how changes in parenting-time can affect child support payments and Family Tax Benefit splitting in Australia: A pre-/post reform comparison. Australian Journal of Family Law, 26, 1-33.
Su-Wuen, O. (2007). Family Court Statistics 2005. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Taylor, N. (2006). Care of children: Families, dispute resolution and the Family Court. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Taylor, N. J., Gollop, M. M., & Smith, A. B. (2000a). Children and young people’s perspectives on their legal representation. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices: Research, policy and practice (pp. 110-133). Auckland: Pearson Education.
Taylor, N., Gollop, M., & Smith, A. (2000b). Children and young people’s perspectives on the role of Counsel for the Child. Butterworths Family Law Journal, 3(6), 110-133.
Taylor, N., Gollop, M., Smith, A., & Tapp, P. (1999). The role of Counsel for the Child: Perspectives of children, young people and their lawyers. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.
Taylor, N., Gollop, M., Tapp, P., Gaffney, M., Smith, A., & Henaghan, M. (2000). Children’s rights in New Zealand family law judgments: Research report. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.
Taylor, N. J., Gollop, M., & Henaghan, M. (2010a). Relocation following parental separation in New Zealand: Complexity and diversity. International Family Law Journal, March, 97-105.
Taylor, N. J., Gollop, M., & Henaghan, M. (2010b). Relocation following parental separation: The welfare and best interests of children. Research report to the NZ Law Foundation. Dunedin: Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of Otago.
Tolmie, J., Elizabeth, V., & Gavey, N. (2010). Is 50:50 shared care a desirable norm following family separation? Raising questions about current family law practices in New Zealand. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 24, 136-166.
Trinder, L., Hunter, R., Hitchings, E., Miles, J., Moorhead, R., Smith, L., et al. (2014). Litigants in person in private family law cases. London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.
True, J. (2005). Methodologies for analysing the impact of public policy on families: A conceptual review. Research Report No 5/05. Wellington: Families Commission.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Interagency panel on juvenile justice. (2010). Criteria for the design and evaluation of juvenile justice reform programmes. New York: United Nations.
Wade, J. (1997). Four evaluation studies of family mediation services in Australia. Robina, Australia: Bond University.
Wade, J. (1997). Four evaluation studies of family mediation services in Australia. Australian Journal of Family Law, 12, 343-348.
Walker, J. (2013, March). A brave new world for family mediation in England and Wales? Challenges and opportunities following the Norgrove Review. Paper presented at the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, Sydney, Australia.
Zondag, B. (2009). Procedural innovation in the New Zealand Family Courts: The Parenting Hearings Programme. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Appendix B: Summary of Empirical Research Reviewed in the Annotated Bibliography
Table 2: Summary of empirical research from annotated bibliography
Publication
|
Country
|
Qualitative
|
Quantitative
|
Interviews
|
Survey/
Questionnaire |
Focus
groups |
Admin. data
|
Document
review |
File/case
analysis |
Professionals
|
Parents
|
Children
|
Topic
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bartlett (2006)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
FC statistics
|
Barwick & Gray (2007)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Family mediation
|
Barwick, Gray & Macky (2000)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Domestic Violence Act 1995
|
Barwick, Gray & Macky (2003)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Complex cases
|
Cochrane (2005)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Children’s participation
|
Colmar Brunton (2009)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Child support, parenting arrangements
|
Coombes, Morgan & McGray (2007)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic violence
|
Department of Justice (1993)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Custody and access, court processes
|
Goldson (2006)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Child-inclusive mediation
|
Hall, Lee & Harland (1993)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Custody and access, court processes
|
Gollop et al. (1997, 2000); Smith et al. (1997); Henaghan et al.
(1998)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Access arrangements, post-separation life
|
Harland (1991a)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Custody and access, court processes
|
Harland (1991b)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Custody and access, court processes, counselling co-ordinators
|
Hong (1991)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Custody and access, court processes, counsel for the child, specialist
report writers
|
Knaggs & Harland (2009a, 2009b)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Parenting Hearings Programme
|
Knaggs et al. (2008)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Family Violence Courts
|
Lee (1990)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Custody and access, court processes, child welfare, parental views &
experiences
|
Loomis (1985)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Evaluation of children’s advocate scheme pilot
|
Maxwell, Pritchard & Roberston (1990)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
FC counsellors’ perspectives on Family Court
|
Maxwell & Robertson (1994a, 1994b)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
Family Court counselling
|
Maxwell, Robertson & Vincent (1994)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
Care and contact arrangements, parents’ perspectives
|
Ministry of Justice (2009)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family Court statistics
|
Ministry of Justice (2010)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family Court statistics
|
Ministry of Justice (2011a)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
CoCA & RPA applications
|
Ministry of Justice (2011b)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Parenting through Separation
|
Ministry of Justice (2012)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Experiences of Family Court
|
Mitchell & Chapman (2006)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Father’s post-separation perspectives and pathways
|
Morgan, Coombes & McGray (2007)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Family Violence Court protocols, evaluation
|
Morgan, Coombes, Te Hiwi & McGray (2007)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Family Violence Courts
|
Pitama, Ririnui & Mikaere (2002)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Māori experiences of the Family Court
|
Pryor (2004)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Stepfamilies
|
Pryor (2012)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Parents’ experiences of Family Court, court orders
|
Pryor & Major (2012)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Family Court processes, roles and professionals
|
Research & Evaluation, Department for Courts (2003)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family Court statistics
|
Robertson (2014)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Stepfamilies
|
Robertson & Pryor (2009, 2011)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Parenting Through Separation programme
|
Robertson, Pryor & Moss (2008)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Care arrangements for children, non-litigators, post-separation
pathways
|
Robertson et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2007c)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Protection orders, Domestic violence
|
Robinson (2010); Robinson & Henaghan (2011)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
Children’s views
|
Roguski et al. (2008)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Relationship support
|
Smith & Gollop (2001a, 2001b); Gollop, Smith & Taylor (2000)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
Children’s perspectives
|
Smith, Banbury & Ong (2009)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Self-representing litgants
|
Su-Wuen, O (2005)
|
NZ
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family Court statistics
|
Taylor (2006)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Family Court and dispute resolution
|
Taylor, Gollop, Smith & Tapp (1999); Taylor, Gollop & Smith (2000a,
2000b)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Counsel for the Child
|
Taylor, Gollop & Henaghan (2010a, 2010b), Gollop & Taylor
(2012)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Relocation
|
Taylor, Gollop, Tapp, Gaffney, Smith & Henaghan (2000)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
Judgment analysis, children’s rights
|
Tolmie, Elizabeth & Gavey (2010)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Women’s experiences, care arrangement disputes
|
Zondag (2009)
|
NZ
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Parenting Hearings Programme
|
Akin Ojelabi, et al. (2011)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
FDR, cultural appropriateness
|
Allen Consulting (2013)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Family law services
|
Armstrong (2006)
|
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
Law reform
|
Armstrong (2011a)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
FDR, cultural appropriateness
|
Armstrong (2011a)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
FDR, cultural appropriateness
|
AGD & FaHCSIA (2010)
|
Australia
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Audit of Family Centres initiative
|
AGD & Relationships Australia (2011)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Online FDR
|
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2007)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation framework
|
Bagshaw et al. (2010)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Family violence
|
Brown (2010)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Family Relationship Centre
|
Carson, Fehlberg & Millward (2013)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
FDR and family law services
|
Caruana (2010)
|
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
Collaborative law, FDR and family law conferencing services
|
Cashmore et al. (2010)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Shared care
|
Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council (2012)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
FDR, training needs
|
De Maio et al. (2012)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Survey of Recently Separated Parents, experiences of family law system,
family violence
|
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(2013)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation framework for place based income management
|
Graham, Fitzgerald & Phelps (2009)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Children’s participation in FRCs
|
Kaspiew et al. (2013)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Independent Children’s Lawyers
|
Kaspiew et al. (2012)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of pilot of FDR in family violence cases
|
Kaspiew et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2011); Moloney et al. (2010); Moloney, Weston
& Hand (2013)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Evaluation of 2009 reforms
|
KPMG (2008)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
FDRL and legal aid commissions
|
Lodge & Alexander (2010)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
Adolescents’ experiences of parental separation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McArthur et al. (2011)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
Evaluation of Supporting children after separation and Post separation
cooperative parenting programmes
|
McIntosh & Long (2006), McIntosh, Long & Wells (2009)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
Child-inclusive and child-focused mediation
|
Moloney et al. (2011a, 2001b, 2013)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of Family Relationship Centre legal assistance partnerships
programme
|
Morgan, Boxall, Terer & Harris (2012)
|
Australia
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of alternative dispute resolution in children’s
court
|
Qu & Weston (2010); Qu, Weston, Moloney, Kaspiew & Dunstan
(2014)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Post-separation parenting dynamics (Longitudinal Study of Separated
Families)
|
Smyth, Rodgers, Son, Allen & Vnuk (2012)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Child support and parenting arrangements knowledge pre- and
post-reform
|
Smyth, Chisholm, Rodgers & Son (2014)
|
Australia
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Child support, shared parenting
|
Bacon (2004)
|
Canada
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Post-separation parenting programme evaluation
|
Bacon & McKenzie (2001, 2004)
|
Canada
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of post-separation parenting programmes
|
Irving & Benjamin (1992)
|
Canada
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of private mediation
|
Sieppert, Lybarger, Bertrand & Hornick (1999)
|
Canada
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of post-separation parenting programmes
|
Gray, Verdieck, Smith & Freed (1997)
|
USA
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of Making it Work parenting workshops
|
Shifflett & Cummings (1999)
|
USA
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
|
Evaluation of post-separation parenting programme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barlow, Hunter, Smithson
& Ewing (2014) |
UK
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Out-of-court dispute resolution
|
Trinder et al. (2014)
|
UK
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
✓
|
|
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
|
Litigants in person
|
Appendix C: Workshop Participants
Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Melbourne
University of Otago
Ministry of
Justice
Families Commission
Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society
FairWay Resolution
Ltd
Apologies
[1] See bibliography in Appendix A
for the full references.
[2] In
their 2013 submission to the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, the Families
Commission noted that, “There may be a role
for the Commission in
monitoring and evaluating the impact of these changes on separated
families” (p. 16).
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZFamJustRef/2015/2.html