Adversarialism in informal, collaborative, and 'soft' inquisitorial settings: lawyer roles in child welfare legal environments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article explores the challenges and benefits of increased legal representation in child welfare hearings, with reference to the Scottish Children’s Hearings System. We look at the role and impact of adversarial behaviours within legal environments intended to follow an informal, collaborative approach. We analyse the views of 66 individuals involved in the Hearings System, including reporters, social workers, panel members and lawyers, collected through four focus groups and 12 interviews held in 2015. We place this analysis in the context of previous research. Our findings identify concern about adversarialism, inter-professional tensions and various challenges associated with burgeoning legal representation. Difficulties stem from disparate professional values and perceived threats to the ethos of hearings. We conclude it is difficult, but possible, to incorporate an adversarial element into such forums. Doing so may help to protect rights and potentially improve decision-making for children and families. The article concludes by considering implications for the practice of lawyers and others.

LanguageEnglish
Pages425-444
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume41
Issue number4
Early online date10 Sep 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 10 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

child welfare
lawyer
reporter
social worker
threat
decision making
interview
Values
Group

Keywords

  • decision-making
  • lawyers
  • rights
  • best interests
  • adversarialism
  • social work

Cite this

@article{1935c66bc5d3430c923284569116ba42,
title = "Adversarialism in informal, collaborative, and 'soft' inquisitorial settings: lawyer roles in child welfare legal environments",
abstract = "This article explores the challenges and benefits of increased legal representation in child welfare hearings, with reference to the Scottish Children’s Hearings System. We look at the role and impact of adversarial behaviours within legal environments intended to follow an informal, collaborative approach. We analyse the views of 66 individuals involved in the Hearings System, including reporters, social workers, panel members and lawyers, collected through four focus groups and 12 interviews held in 2015. We place this analysis in the context of previous research. Our findings identify concern about adversarialism, inter-professional tensions and various challenges associated with burgeoning legal representation. Difficulties stem from disparate professional values and perceived threats to the ethos of hearings. We conclude it is difficult, but possible, to incorporate an adversarial element into such forums. Doing so may help to protect rights and potentially improve decision-making for children and families. The article concludes by considering implications for the practice of lawyers and others.",
keywords = "decision-making, lawyers, rights, best interests, adversarialism, social work",
author = "Robert Porter and Vicki Welch and Fiona Mitchell",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1080/09649069.2019.1663015",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "425--444",
journal = "Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law",
issn = "0964-9069",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adversarialism in informal, collaborative, and 'soft' inquisitorial settings

T2 - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

AU - Porter, Robert

AU - Welch, Vicki

AU - Mitchell, Fiona

PY - 2019/9/10

Y1 - 2019/9/10

N2 - This article explores the challenges and benefits of increased legal representation in child welfare hearings, with reference to the Scottish Children’s Hearings System. We look at the role and impact of adversarial behaviours within legal environments intended to follow an informal, collaborative approach. We analyse the views of 66 individuals involved in the Hearings System, including reporters, social workers, panel members and lawyers, collected through four focus groups and 12 interviews held in 2015. We place this analysis in the context of previous research. Our findings identify concern about adversarialism, inter-professional tensions and various challenges associated with burgeoning legal representation. Difficulties stem from disparate professional values and perceived threats to the ethos of hearings. We conclude it is difficult, but possible, to incorporate an adversarial element into such forums. Doing so may help to protect rights and potentially improve decision-making for children and families. The article concludes by considering implications for the practice of lawyers and others.

AB - This article explores the challenges and benefits of increased legal representation in child welfare hearings, with reference to the Scottish Children’s Hearings System. We look at the role and impact of adversarial behaviours within legal environments intended to follow an informal, collaborative approach. We analyse the views of 66 individuals involved in the Hearings System, including reporters, social workers, panel members and lawyers, collected through four focus groups and 12 interviews held in 2015. We place this analysis in the context of previous research. Our findings identify concern about adversarialism, inter-professional tensions and various challenges associated with burgeoning legal representation. Difficulties stem from disparate professional values and perceived threats to the ethos of hearings. We conclude it is difficult, but possible, to incorporate an adversarial element into such forums. Doing so may help to protect rights and potentially improve decision-making for children and families. The article concludes by considering implications for the practice of lawyers and others.

KW - decision-making

KW - lawyers

KW - rights

KW - best interests

KW - adversarialism

KW - social work

U2 - 10.1080/09649069.2019.1663015

DO - 10.1080/09649069.2019.1663015

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 425

EP - 444

JO - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

JF - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

SN - 0964-9069

IS - 4

ER -