Abstract
AbstractThe social scientists and legal professionals who work in family law in Australia should be recognised for working tirelessly in a complex, overworked, and archaic system. A system that underserves their capacity to maintain integrity, expertise, and ethical diligence in the professions they are assigned. In this perspective piece, we acknowledge the innovative work being done within this system to strive to meet the best interests of the children they serve, whilst highlighting the fundamental flaws of an adversarial system that breeds acculturation across disciplines and disables the practitioners who operate within these systems from legitimately performing their duties and championing the human rights of children.
Funder
University of the Sunshine Coast
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference23 articles.
1. Amundson, J., & Lux, G. (2019). Tippins and Wittman revisited: Law, social science, and the role of the child custody expert 14 years later. Family Court Review, 57(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12398
2. Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics 2020. AASW. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/13400
3. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2019). Family law for the future – An inquiry into the family law system, final report. https://apo.org.au/node/229971
4. Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittmann asked the wrong question. Family Court Review, 43(4), 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00054.x
5. Chisholm, R. (2007). ‘Less adversarial’ proceedings in children’s cases [opinion]. Family Matters, (77), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.948100883278494