Cross Jurisdictional Survey of Family Case Assessment in Family Disputes

CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY OF EARLY CASE
ASSESSMENT IN FAMILY DISPUTES

CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY OF EARLY CASE
ASSESSMENT IN FAMILY DISPUTES
Prepared for:
The Family Justice Reform Working Group
July 2004
Prepared by:
Colleen Getz
1649 Brousson Drive

Victoria, B.C.
V8N 5N2
Tel: (250) 721-6999

Fax: (250) 721-5376
E-Mail: cgetz@telus.net
Cross-Jurisdictional Survey of Early Case Assessment in Family Disputes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. In This Report 1
B. Project Scope and Methodology 2
II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 3
A. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes 3

B. Points and Modes of Access 7
C. Scope of Assessment 8
D. Meeting Formats 10
E. Assessment Officers 11
III. IN CLOSING 13
A. Comments in Summary 13
REFERENCE SOURCES
APPENDIX
Detail of Programs in Selected Jurisdictions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes
¾ this survey focused on early assessment processes accessed at the stage of first
contact, or “stage 1”, of the family justice system; the survey was limited to
jurisdictions in Canada, U.S.A., U.K., and Australia
¾ the results suggest that clarity of purpose — or the way in which one defines the
conditions that are the focus of an early assessment process — is an important first
step in developing the foundations of that process
¾ most typically, the programs investigated had an internal focus — engaging in
intake/screening/assessment processes as a means of determining suitability for a
range of other services offered internally by their organization
¾ court-based, post-filing assessment processes are largely directed at early
“management” of cases for which more traditional litigation is suitable, early
settlement, or exploring ADR options.
(interesting applications: in Australia, the “Case Assessment Conference”
with both legal and social work professionals; in the U.S.: Connecticut —
“negotiations“ with Family Services Counsellors and “Case Management
Conferences” before Special Masters; Southern District of California —
“early neutral evaluation” as an assessment tool for determining
appropriateness for other ADR options; “Scheduling Conferences” for
directing people to ADR options in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County,
Maryland)
¾ although few evaluations were found, available evidence indicates that these
processes contribute to higher out-of-court settlement rates
¾ few programs were found to be stand-alone, broad-based assessment programs
with a view to connecting people with a range of services, whether internal or
external to their own organization
(notable exceptions: “Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS)” in the
U.K., and to a more limited extent, the “Information and Referral Service” at
the Family Conciliation Offices in Manitoba)
¾ the term “triage”, if used, is typically connected with programs oriented to crisis
intervention rather than the early assessment of a broad range of family cases as
envisioned in earlier papers prepared for the Working Group; our own Rule 5
triage process in B.C. is one of the exceptions
2. Points and Modes of Access
¾ while “early” assessment was highlighted as of primary importance in most of the

programs profiled, whether accessed at a pre- or post-filing stage, some
particularly emphasized the fact that their services support clients at any time that
access to the family justice system and other support services may be necessary
i
(interesting applications: “Information and Referral Service” at the Family

Conciliation Offices in Manitoba; “Family Advice and Information Service
(FAInS)” in the U.K.— in which the family solicitors, who are the first contact
service-deliverers for the project, are described as “acting as the client’s ‘case
manager’” at any stage of contact with the family justice and related support
systems)
¾ voluntary-access assessment processes, whether community or court-based,
depend on referrals from a broad range of public and private professionals/
agencies — of which the courts are one; the success of these programs in
attracting clients depends heavily on the strength of their relationships with other
service providers in the community, and on a degree of public awareness about the
services offered
¾ mandatory-access, court-based assessment processes are either a procedural step
which must be taken prior to a court hearing, or are accessed when attendance is
ordered by the court; while largely independent of other service providers in the
community or of the level of public awareness about the process, these processes
are only accessed by clients that have already defined their issues in legal terms
¾ few assessment processes have mixed voluntary and mandatory access features;
those that do typically form part of an intake process for another program that
takes mandatory referrals, for example, a mandatory information session or court-
ordered custody assessment process
(interesting applications: “Information and Referral Service” at the Family
Conciliation Offices in Manitoba; “court social workers” assigned to the New
Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division)
3. Scope of Assessment
¾ the scope of early assessment — that is, the degree to which information about
client circumstances is solicited and evaluated — is very much dependent upon the
particular repertoire of services offered by the organization following the initial
contact/intake, and the depth of assessment at the next step in the process
¾ the information gathered typically includes “tombstone” information, relationship
history, current circumstances, legally relevant information (income/financial,
children’s status, property and debts, etc.); information pertinent to a violence
screening process is also gathered, and the screen applied, at this early stage in
many programs
¾ additional information, and the scope of the assessment of all the information
gathered — for example, whether or not additional screening protocols are applied
or whether suitability for mediation/conciliation services is assessed — depends
upon the nature of the services available/referral options/next steps following the
assessment
(interesting applications: emergency relief process for child custody cases in
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, involves substance
abuse screening; assessment by court social workers at the New Brunswick
ii
Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division includes legal aid intake/eligibility

assessment as part of the intake process)
¾ some early assessment processes appeared to have a better “fit”, or were more
readily incorporated within the larger justice process, if part of a more holistic
justice-delivery concept such as the multi-door courthouse or unified family court
(interesting applications: multi-door courthouses in Middlesex, Massachusetts
and Washington, D.C.; unified family court in the New Brunswick Court of
Queen’s Bench, Family Division)
¾ multi-door courthouses have been criticized, however, for having inadequate
intake and referral processes for family cases
¾ community-based programs are more likely to consider a broad range of
professionals/agencies/dispute resolution alternatives as referral options for clients
than are court-based programs
4. Meeting Formats
¾ as with assessment scope, the meeting format also depends on the point of access
and the nature of assessment provided at the next step, whatever that step may be
¾ most assessments involve one-on-one meetings with clients of varying durations;
telephone intake/assessment alone is uncommon, but is noted as frequently the
first form of contact with clients
(notable exception: “Information and Referral Service” at the Family
Conciliation Office in Manitoba where most of the intake assessment is done
over the phone by a qualified social worker)
¾ early assessment in most voluntary programs initiated at a pre-filing stage is rarely
undertaken with the couple together, unless mediation/conciliation is indicated
(notable exception: California Family Law Facilitators typically require
completion of a “disclosure form” prior to meeting with clients, and may work
with groups, couples, or individuals in walk-in clinics)
¾ since assessing the likely course the case will take through the courts — and
frequently early settlement — is the focus for court-based assessment processes
that are part of a case management mechanism, both parties and their counsel take
part in these processes
(interesting applications: “Case Assessment Conference” in Australia —
however, does involve a prior individual meeting to screen for family violence;
“Negotiations” and “Case Assessment Conferences” in Connecticut; “early
neutral evaluation” in the Southern District of California; “Scheduling
Conference” in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland)
5. Assessment Officers
¾ early assessment processes in all jurisdictions involve people with specialized

training
¾ in all cases, assessment processes are conducted by either social service or legal
iii
professionals, or both — social workers, psychologists, mediators, lawyers, quasi-

judicial officers, judges/magistrates, or combinations of these
¾ court-based assessment processes that are part of a case management mechanism
typically involve a judicial officer alone
(interesting applications: “early neutral evaluation” in the Southern District
of California conducted by a magistrate judge; “Scheduling Conference” in
the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland conducted by a Judge or
Master in Chancery)
¾ in some court-based/case management assessment processes, however, the value
of having a social-legal team of professionals is recognized
(interesting applications: “Case Assessment Conferences” in Australia; “Case
Management Conferences” in Connecticut)
6. Conclusions
¾ broad-based early assessment or “triage” processes that operate with a view to

connecting people with a range of family justice and related support services —
whether internal or external to the sponsoring organization — are relatively rare
¾ care must be taken in consideration of the purposes and access features identified
for early case assessment processes; these features largely determine the array of
options of which family clients can subsequently take advantage
¾ evaluation efforts, if available, have not particularly focussed on the placement of
the assessment process and how it is accessed — community- or court-based, pre-
or post-filing, voluntary or mandatory access; nevertheless, details gathered from
practitioners in other jurisdictions, and from the information available about their
programs, suggest that placement and access may have important implications for
the following:
- the extent to which family clients categorize/perceive their issues in either
social or legal terms
- how early in a dispute a client’s needs can be assessed
- the range of services/options to which clients can subsequently be referred
- take up rates, or the likelihood that family clients will access the service
- degree to which public awareness of the service may be necessary
- “empowerment”, or the extent to which family clients take responsibility for
resolving their own issues
¾ in addition to the professional qualifications that assessment officers bring with
them in the relevant areas of the law, social work, or other related subject area,
results indicate that specialized training and experience is necessary to conduct
early assessments in a manner that is both effective and sensitive
¾ although not widely applied, the experience of other jurisdictions indicates that
early case assessment would be a valuable component — perhaps even an
indispensable one — of a better integrated, more holistic, more efficient and
effective family justice system in B.C.
iv
I. INTRODUCTION
A. In This Report
In July of 2003, a working group of B.C.’s Justice Review Task Force — the
Family Justice Reform Working Group (FJRWG)1 — was struck with a
mandate to explore a number of options in connection with the family justice
system in B.C. As part of this mandate, the Working Group was to:
“… complete research, analysis and consultation necessary to develop

recommendations regarding the design of a family justice system that will meet
the following criteria:
¾ accessible
¾ effective
¾ integrated
¾ fosters early resolution
¾ minimizes family conflict
¾ oriented to the needs of children and families”.
The Working Group approached about surveying

family justice systems outside British Columbia for their experiences with
early case assessment processes. This survey was conducted in the spring and
early summer of 2004.
A survey Mindful of the above criteria for the design of a family justice system, the
focused on survey focused primarily on assessment processes that occur in what the
assessment at
the first-contact Working Group has described as “stage 1” of the family justice system: the
stage of the time at which family clients make their first contact with the system. At this
justice system stage, the purpose of assessment is to ensure that referrals are made to
appropriate services — whether or not those services are delivered by the
family justice system — and to provide appropriate information about dispute
resolution options. Additionally, assessment at this stage would provide an
opportunity for cases to be “managed” early on in the process of dispute
resolution.
In addition to the general observations that are made and discussed in the main
body of this report, profiles of the more interesting programs discovered in the
course of the survey are provided in the appendix. These profiles provide a
brief overview of the main features of the assessment process. Information is
1
For the sake of brevity, the Family Justice Reform Working Group is referred to either as the
“FJRWG” or the “Working Group” throughout this report.
1
also provided about the qualifications of the assessment officer(s) performing

the assessment, the format of the assessment meeting, access mechanisms, and
any evaluation results that may be available.
There are many lessons to be learned from the experiences of other

jurisdictions with assessment processes in family cases. In this report, those
lessons are explored and some conclusions drawn about their applicability to a
“made-in-B.C.” family justice system.
B. Project Scope and Methodology
Limited to Employing the theory that justice systems largely similar to our own are
jurisdictions in
likely to yield assessment processes with a better “fit” for the B.C. family
Canada, U.S.,
U.K., and justice system, the survey was limited to jurisdictions in Canada, the United
Australia States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The survey was further limited to
those sites that were named in the literature on family justice or dispute
resolution, identified by subject matter experts as being of interest, or were
found in a search of relevant Internet websites.
The survey was not, then, an exhaustive search of all programs and processes
that may exist in these jurisdictions. Rather, it was a more directed sampling
of those that were most likely to be of interest to the Working Group. The
work was greatly assisted by the fact that a considerable amount of very
detailed information is available on Internet websites in these jurisdictions.
Where insufficient detail was available, officials at selected sites were
contacted by email and telephone.
As already mentioned, the focus was on assessment processes that occur in

what has been defined by the FJRWG as “stage 1” of the family justice system.
Nevertheless, assessment processes that do not occur early enough to be
classified as a stage-1 practice were included if the assessment format,
mechanism by which clients accessed the process, or other features were of
interest or might have application in an assessment process at this early stage.
Services or processes that involved gathering only basic “tombstone”

information for the purpose of providing information, services, or options that
are generally available — that is, not tailored to a specific client’s
circumstances, and not involving an evaluation of those circumstances beyond
basic program eligibility — were not selected for analysis. Finally, since B.C.
practices have already been documented and are very familiar to the Working
Group, these have not been re-visited or described in the context of the survey,
except as a point of comparison.
2
II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
A. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes
The importance The stated purpose or orientation of an early assessment process tells much
of purpose
about the likely features and content of these processes. The results of the
survey suggest that clarity of purpose — or the way in which one defines the
conditions that are the focus of an early assessment process — is an important
first step in developing the foundations of that process.
Most typically, the processes investigated in the course of the survey had an
internal focus, to the extent that they primarily engaged in intake/screening/
assessment processes as a means of determining suitability for a range of other
services offered internally by the organization. Court-based assessment
processes, in particular, were almost universally internally focussed. They are
largely directed at early settlement, exploring various in-house dispute
resolution options, or early “management” of cases for which more traditional
litigation is suitable. Additionally, court-based assessments rarely involved an
assessment of needs in other-than-legal terms.
There are, nevertheless, some interesting examples of where court-based

assessment processes have attempted to incorporate a “social side” into their
techniques. While not perhaps occurring at the earliest stage in the evolution
of a case as possible — to the extent that clients have already defined their
dispute in legal terms — they clearly have some application to an assessment
process designed for the first-contact stage in the family justice system.
A “social side” to The case assessment conference employed by the Family Court of Australia is
case assessment one such example. These conferences are conducted by a legally-trained
in Australia Deputy Registrar in cases involving property, a Court Mediator who is a
qualified social worker in cases involving children’s issues, or both in cases
involving both property and children’s issues (see also discussion under E.
Assessment Officers). The “social side” of these conferences is, perhaps,
addressed as much by who conducts them as by design, since the purposes that
have been articulated for the conference process are largely oriented to
administration.2 Nevertheless, the interests of the court in expediting justice
2
The purposes that have been identified as most important for the case assessment conference are to:
• identify and assess the main factual and legal issues of the case;
• target future services of the Court to meet the needs of the case;
• provide an early opportunity to reach agreement with the aid of an officer of the Court; and
• adopt a case management pathway.
(Source: 5.4 Case Assessment Conference, Case Management Directions. Practice Direction 3 -
2002, Family Court of Australia, effective date: 1 August 2002.)
3
and saving limited court resources by encouraging early or out-of-court

settlements — with the expertise of both legal and non-legal professionals, and
by employing alternate dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms where
applicable and suitable — coincide with the interests of family clients to
resolve their disputes in a less costly, more comprehensive manner than is
possible through more traditional court mechanisms. Australia, of course, also
has the advantage of a long and healthy history with court-sponsored ADR
mechanisms in their family justice system.
Similar court-based case management applications, but which also employ less
traditional court-oriented mechanisms, can be found in the scheduling
conference in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and
negotiations and case management conferences in Connecticut. In both
jurisdictions, these early procedures are a mandatory first step in the court
process for family cases. Also in both, the court is supported by ancillary
services that offer counselling support as well as a range of court-sponsored
ADR programs.
Facilitating In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the scheduling conference is held by a

settlement in Judge or Master, and is primarily convened for the purpose of determining
Anne Arundel how a case will proceed. It is also, however, seen as an early opportunity to
County,
Maryland
determine what court resources can be of assistance to the parties and the
family, and as a means of facilitating early settlement. Unresolved pedente lite
issues (issues for temporary resolution until trial) not agreed upon during the
scheduling conference may be referred to a “facilitator” — an experienced
family lawyer acting as a neutral third party. Settlement is encouraged and
emphasized at every opportunity. Indeed, the court materials express the
general purpose of these and other steps in the process as “… to give … as
much assistance and as many opportunities as possible to settle … without
having a fully contested trial”3.
Multiple In Connecticut, there are several procedural steps that encourage settlement, or
opportunities for
assessment and
divert cases out of the regular court system into appropriate ADR services.
settlement in The earliest stage 1 assessment process involves a “negotiation” with a
Connecticut counsellor from the Family Services office attached to the court. This is a
mandatory step that, if not undertaken before the parties’ first appearance in
court, will be ordered by the judge at that time. At the conclusion of a
3
“What is the Scheduling Conference?”, Understanding and Preparing for the Family Law Scheduling
Conference. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
http://www.circuitcourt.org/Family%20Law/family%20brochure.htm, website searched 21 June 2004.
4
negotiation, many cases are reported to either settle or be directed to one of the
ADR services offered by the Family Services office.
If a settlement does not occur following a negotiation, “limited contested”

cases — typically those involving financial issues — may go on to a “Case
Management Conference”. These are conducted by Special Masters who work
in pairs. Connecticut’s process is similar to Australia’s in their use of non-
legal professionals in these conferencing processes in applicable cases (see E.
Assessment Officers) — and similar, also, in their capacity to deal with family
issues of a non-legal nature in an effort to achieve a settlement. If the matter is
unresolved at this initial conference, the next step is a “settlement conference”
before a judge. In Connecticut, then, the negotiations and subsequent
conferencing processes are for the purpose of assessing suitability for various
ADR options, but also clearly for the purpose of promoting early settlement.
“Early Neutral Another unusual example is the use of early neutral evaluation in the Southern
Evaluation” as District of California — in this case, deploying what is typically an ADR
an assessment method as a type of assessment process. On an experimental basis, nearly all
tool in the
Southern District civil cases, including family, are required to appear before a magistrate judge
of California for early neutral evaluation. As part of this process, the magistrate judge
explores the court-sponsored ADR options that are available, including
arbitration, mediation, and settlement conference. If a settlement does not
transpire at the conclusion of this process, the parties may select one of these
options, or the magistrate judge may order their participation in one of them.
Or, they may proceed along the usual trial route if the likelihood of settlement
by other means is unlikely.
Higher out-of- Although very few evaluations were found (and of these fewer still focused on
court settlement stand-alone early assessment processes as distinct from other dispute
rates
resolution mechanisms to which they may be attached), available evidence
indicates that these processes contribute to higher out-of-court settlement rates.
For example, the experience in Australia is that about 30% of applications for
final orders, and about 40% of applications for interim orders, settle at the
conclusion of an assessment conference.4
Few programs in the jurisdictions surveyed were found to be stand-alone,

broad-based assessment programs that operated with a view to connecting
people with a range of services — whether internal or external to their own
organization. Additionally, very few community-based assessment processes
with a family justice connection or focus could be found. Most are court-
based. Just two stood out as notable exceptions to this: the Family Advice and
4
Statistics quoted in “Project Mercury – National Implementation”, excerpts from pages on the Family
Court of Australia Intranet, provided by Peter Maynard, Manager Strategy and Review, National
Support Office, Family Court of Australia.
5
Information Service (FAInS) in the U.K., and, to a more limited extent, the
Information and Referral Service at the Family Conciliation Offices in
Manitoba.
Broad, FAInS is a pilot project operating in numerous locations throughout England

community-based and Wales. Currently, the project involves the provision of information and
assessment and
referral in the U.K.
advice to family clients by family solicitors who may give legal advice, but
who are primarily charged with identifying an array of specialized services in
the community for their clients. These specialized services may include family
counselling, debt counselling, and ADR options such as mediation. The
project offers a stage-1 assessment and referral process, but is also available at
any time the parties have need of information, advice, or referral.
Information The Information and Referral Service administered by the Family Conciliation
and referral in Offices in Manitoba is, really, more of an intake service for the other programs
Manitoba offered through these offices — which include a range of counselling support
and assessment programs, accessed either by court-order or voluntarily.
Nevertheless, the intake assessment is conducted by a qualified social worker,
and involves a preliminary assessment of the client’s situation beyond what
would strictly be a determination of eligibility for these other programs. They
also have a careful policy of compiling information about external programs in
the community for information and referral purposes.
“Triage” — The term “triage” is rarely used — at least, by the jurisdictions surveyed — in
typically reference to a broad-based assessment process. Our own “Rule 5” triage
connected process in B.C. is one of the exceptions. If the term is used, it is typically
with crisis
intervention connected with programs oriented to crisis intervention rather than the early
rather than assessment of a broad range of family cases as envisioned in earlier papers
assessment prepared for the Working Group5.
For example, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, there is
an emergency relief “triage” process for child custody cases. The process is,
however, strictly for the management of emergency cases. The Family Court
in Dover, Delaware, features a “Triage Unit” — but theirs is largely an
information/help desk without any in-depth assessment process. Here in
Canada, the Manitoba Family Conciliation Offices are considering the
development of a triage function. But, here too, such a function is conceived
of as part of a crisis intervention process for at-risk clients.
5
In addition to the papers prepared by Irene Robertson for the Working Group, a useful protocol for
triage and elements of assessment in a triage process is outlined by Jeannette De Varis, in: “A Three-
Tiered Decision Tree Triage Strategy for Alternative Child Custody Disputes”, New Jersey
Chapter of Family and Conciliation Courts, The New Jersey Family Court Conciliator, Spring
2002. http://www.psychologyinfo.com/NJ-AFCC/spring2002.html.
6
B. Points and Modes of Access
Access — a Access is also a defining feature of an early assessment process in the family
defining feature of
early assessment
justice system. More specifically, the point(s) in the evolution of a family case
processes at which assessment processes are accessed, and the means by which they are
accessed, are defining features. The array of options of which family clients
can subsequently take advantage is either more or less restricted, depending on
the placement of the assessment process. The type of access may also send a
message about how the system views family clients: is their dispute a “case”,
to be treated as a single entity or event, or is it part of a relationship, that will
continue to evolve even after dissolution of the marriage — with all the
pursuant complexities by which human relationships are characterized?
The point of access to an assessment process was found to vary greatly across
the jurisdictions surveyed — some at a pre-filing stage, some post-filing
(particularly if assessment is part of a court case management process), and
others at any stage along the way. While “early” assessment was highlighted
as of primary importance in most of the programs profiled (see Appendix),
whether accessed at a pre- or post-filing stage, some particularly emphasized
the fact that their services support clients at any time that access to the family
justice system and other support services may be necessary.
The two community-based programs discussed in the previous section again

stand out as examples of this. In the FAInS project in the U.K., the service is
described “… as part of an ongoing process, with the family solicitor acting as
the client’s ‘case manager’, whilst the client addresses his or her issues”.6 A
similar perspective on long-term support is expressed in connection with the
Information and Referral Service at the Family Conciliation Offices in
Manitoba.
Voluntary access Voluntary-access assessment processes, whether community or court-based,

depend greatly on referrals from a broad range of public and private
professionals and agencies — of which the courts are one. The success of
these programs in attracting clients therefore depends heavily on the strength
of their relationships with other service providers in the community, and on a
degree of public awareness about the services offered.
Mandatory Mandatory-access, court-based assessment processes are either a procedural

access step which must be taken prior to a court hearing, or are accessed when
attendance is ordered by the court. While largely independent of other service
providers in the community or of the level of public awareness about the
6
“How does it Work?”, Family Advice and Information Service Pilot Project (FAInS), Legal Services
Commission, London, U.K. http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/fains/, website copyright © 2000.
7
process, these processes are only accessed by clients that have already defined
their issues in legal terms. The specific mechanisms by which assessment is
compelled in these programs are familiar ones; they may be by court order, as
mentioned, or they may be specified in case management rules designated by
standing order or practice directive.
Mixed Few assessment processes had mixed voluntary and mandatory access features.
voluntary and Those that did typically formed part of an intake process for another program
mandatory
access — that took mandatory referrals, for example, a mandatory information session or
Manitoba and court-ordered custody assessment process. There are two good examples of
New mixed-access programs of this type in Canada, again the Information and
Brunswick Referral Service at the Family Conciliation Offices in Manitoba, and the
assignment of court social workers in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Family
Division in New Brunswick.
The Manitoba program has already been described above, and in the previous
section, as being largely an intake assessment process for a range of both
court-ordered and voluntary information, counselling support, and
custody/access assessment programs offered by the same office. In New
Brunswick, court social workers have been attached to the court — originally
with the Provincial Court — since the mid-1970s. This “social arm” of the
court was then integrated as part of the unified family court in the early 1980s,
introduced as the Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division. Any client,
whether they have initiated a court proceeding or not, may see a court social
worker for information and advice, or referrals to other professionals,
programs, or services.
C. Scope of Assessment
Scope The scope of early assessment — that is, the degree to which information
depends on
the next step
about client circumstances is solicited and evaluated — was found to be very
much dependent upon the particular repertoire of services offered by the
organization following the initial contact/intake, and the depth of assessment at
the next step in the process. The information gathered by the programs
profiled in the course of the survey typically include the following, at a
minimum:
8
¾ “tombstone” information
¾ relationship history
¾ current circumstances, and
¾ legally relevant information (income/financial, children’s status, property
and debts, etc.).
Information pertinent to a violence screening process is also gathered, and the

screen applied, at this early stage in many programs.
Substance Additional information, and the scope of the assessment of all the information
abuse gathered — such as whether or not additional screening protocols are applied,
screening, or whether suitability for ADR methods such as mediation or conciliation
and legal aid
services is assessed — depended upon the nature of the services available, the
eligibility
assessment referral options, or the next steps following the assessment. For example, the
emergency relief “triage” process described earlier for child custody cases in
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, involves substance
abuse screening. At the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Family
Division, court social workers conduct a legal aid eligibility assessment as part
of their intake process.
A better “fit” in Some early assessment processes appeared to have a better “fit”, or were more
unified family readily incorporated within the larger justice process, if they were part of a
or multi-door more holistic justice-delivery concept such as the multi-door courthouse or
courthouses
unified family court. The FJRWG is already familiar with both these concepts.
However, it is instructive that the Boston Law Collaborative defines multi-
door courthouse in their “Glossary of Dispute Resolution” as follows:
In a “Multi-Door courthouse,” cases are screened by an intake office, which

makes a determination, in consultation with the parties and their counsel, as to
which of several dispute resolution mechanisms should be used. Typically,
the options available in a Multi-Door courthouse program include, at a
minimum, early neutral evaluation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication.
The concept of the “Multi-Door courthouse” began with Prof. Frank Sander’s
1976 article entitled “Varieties of Dispute Processing,” in which he suggested
that the courts should take a role in matching cases with appropriate dispute
resolution processes …7
(emphasis added)
From this definition, the “screening” of cases and “matching” of clients with
services in multi-door courthouses is consistent with the theory behind triage
or early assessment in the family justice system.
7
Dispute Resolution Glossary of Terms, Boston Law Collaborative, Boston, Massachusetts.
http://www.bostonlawcollaborative.com/documents/, website searched 13 May 2004.
9
Multi-door courthouses appear not to have been implemented in the way

Professor Sander, the concept’s originator, had intended, however. They have
been criticized for having inadequate, or poorly integrated intake and referral
processes.8 The multi-door courthouses examined in the course of the survey
also appeared not to look beyond the limited range of “doors” opened to a
client within the courthouse to the availability of services in the community.
Community- Once again, it was the community-based programs that were more likely to
based
programs —
consider a broad range of professionals, agencies, and dispute resolution
a broader alternatives as referral options for clients than were court-based programs —
focus whether they were “multi-door”, “unified”, or otherwise.
D. Meeting Formats
One-on-one As with assessment scope, the meeting format also depends on the point of
meetings
are typical
access and the nature of assessment provided at the next step, whatever that
step may be. Most assessments were found to involve one-on-one meetings
with clients of varying durations.
Telephone Telephone intake or assessment was uncommon, but it is identified as

assessment frequently the first form of contact with clients. There was one notable
in Manitoba
exception to this, however. At the Information and Referral Service in
Manitoba, most of the intake assessment is done over the phone by a qualified
social worker. As mentioned earlier, however, this assessment is perhaps less
in-depth than some other assessment processes to the extent that this service is
more of an intake process for the other services offered by the Family
Conciliation Offices.
An exception Early assessment in most voluntary programs initiated at a pre-filing stage is

in California rarely undertaken with the couple together, unless mediation or conciliation is
indicated. There was one interesting exception to this observed in the course
of the survey. California’s Family Law Facilitators typically require
completion of a “disclosure form” prior to meeting with clients, and may work
in groups, with couples, or with individuals in walk-in clinics. These
facilitators offer a free service designed to assist pro se or un-represented
family clients in the preparation of their case. Although their duties may vary
somewhat from county to county, within the limits of the guiding statute, the
facilitators primarily provide education, information, and assistance in
connection with child support issues only.
8
See discussion in “The Multi-Door Courthouse”, Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution.
Adversarial Background Paper 2, Australian Law Reform Commission, December 1996.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/2/alternative.html#5.Referralsystems-
Themultidoorcourthouse, website copyright © 2001.
10
Both parties In court-based assessment processes that are part of a case management
and their mechanism, both parties and their counsel typically take part. Some of the
counsel examples already discussed illustrate this observation, including: the Case
attend, if part Assessment Conference in Australia; negotiations and subsequent Case
of a case
management Management Conferences in Connecticut; early neutral evaluation in the
mechanism Southern District of California; and Scheduling Conferences in the Circuit
Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. With some of these processes,
however, there may be a prior meeting with the parties individually to screen
for family violence. In any case, to the extent that the objective of these case
management processes are primarily to assess the course the case is likely to
take through the courts — and, in the examples noted, very much settlement
oriented — both parties need to be present.
E. Assessment Officers
Assessment
officers have
Early assessment processes in all jurisdictions involved people with
specialized
specialized training. In all cases, assessment processes were conducted either
training by legal or social service professionals, or both — social workers,
psychologists, mediators, lawyers, quasi-judicial officers, judges/magistrates,
or combinations of these.
Court-based assessment processes that are part of a case management

mechanism typically involved a judicial officer alone, particularly if early
settlement is a key objective of the process. There are several illustrations of
this. For example, a magistrate judge conducts sessions involving early neutral
evaluation in the Southern District of California. A Judge or Master in
Chancery conducts the Scheduling Conference in the Circuit Court of Anne
Arundel County, Maryland.
The value of In some court-based, case management assessment processes, however, the
inter-disciplinary
teams value of having a social-legal team of professionals is recognized. Earlier (see
section A) reference was made to the Case Assessment Conference in
Australia in which both a lawyer and a Court Mediator — a social worker
specializing in dispute resolution in children’s matters — may conduct the
conference jointly if both property and children’s issues are in dispute. In
Connecticut, the Special Masters conduct Case Management Conferences in
pairs that may be comprised of two senior Family Services Counsellors or
Supervisors, two attorneys (acting on a volunteer basis), or a counsellor-
attorney combination.
11
The subject of In FAInS, the community-based project in the U.K., family solicitors currently
pre-project provide the information and referral services offered through the project.
research in the Solicitors were chosen because of pre-project research that showed that 81% of
U.K.
people experiencing family or relationship difficulties chose to visit a family
solicitor. The project is, nevertheless, exploring the possibility of other
professionals delivering these services — in particular, family mediators.
These other professionals would not, obviously, be in a position to provide
legal advice. The full range of other information and referral services would,
however, be available.
12
III. IN CLOSING
A. Comments in Summary
This was a very brief survey of early case assessment processes in the family
justice systems of Canadian, American, Australian, and British jurisdictions —
and only of selected jurisdictions about which information is readily available
or which have been highlighted for attention by experts in this field.
Nevertheless, the survey has been very instructive for such processes in a
“made-in-B.C.” family justice system.
Family justice The survey results suggest that broad-based early assessment or “triage”
“triage” is processes that operate with a view to connecting people with a range of family
relatively rare
justice and related support services — whether internal or external to the
sponsoring organization — are relatively rare. Those that do exist vary in the
purposes that have been articulated for them, for instance, whether they are
largely directed at intake, information or referral, or oriented to the early
settlement of a dispute.
Perhaps not surprisingly, these stated “purposes” and the access features of the
assessment processes were the defining features of those examined in the
course of the survey. In the design of an early assessment process, therefore,
great care must be taken in consideration of these features. The key objectives
of the process — intake, information and referral, early settlement — and the
point and mode of access to it, also largely determines the array of options of
which family clients can subsequently take advantage in resolving their
disputes.
Placement In respect of the placement of the assessment process and how it is accessed,
and access — evaluation efforts have not so far been particularly focussed on these subjects
important
implications — whether community or court-based, pre or post-filing, voluntary or
mandatory access. Nevertheless, details gathered from practitioners in other
jurisdictions, and from other information generally available about their
programs, suggest that placement and access may have important implications
for the following:
¾ the extent to which family clients categorize/perceive their issues in either

social or legal terms
¾ how early in a dispute a client’s needs can be assessed
¾ the range of services/options to which clients can subsequently be referred
¾ take up rates, or the likelihood that family clients will access the service
¾ degree to which public awareness of the service may be necessary, and
¾ “empowerment”, or the extent to which family clients take responsibility
13
for resolving their own issues.
Specialized Finally, lessons were learned in this survey about the people who conduct early
training and assessment or triage processes. In addition to the professional qualifications
experience is
necessary
that assessment officers bring with them in the relevant areas of the law, social
work, or other related subjects, the results of the survey indicate that
specialized training and experience is necessary to conduct early assessments
in a manner that is both effective and sensitive. Particularly if early settlement
is one objective of the process, these professionals must have the necessary
training — perhaps the authority — to broker an agreement.
A valuable In conclusion, the experience of other jurisdictions indicates that early case
component of a
“made-in-B.C.”
assessment would be a valuable component — perhaps even an indispensable
family justice one — of a better integrated, more holistic, more efficient and effective family
system justice system in B.C.
14
REFERENCE SOURCES
GENERAL REFERENCES
Alternate Dispute Resolution
Cole, Sarah, McEwan, Craig, and Rogers, Nancy. Mediation: Law, Policy,
and Practice. Cumulative Supplement, Vol. 1. Thomson West, 2002.
“Non-Adversarial Case Resolution”, Factsheets/Publications. Administration

for Children and Families, U.S. Department for Health and Human
Services, 17 January 2001.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/adopt02/02adpt5.htm,
website searched May 2004.
Intake/Triage
Hurst Jr., Hunter and Halemba, Gregg. Features of a Full Service Family
Court Ohio Family Court Bulletin, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Fall 2001.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Judicial_and_Court_Services/family_court/v
ol2num3.pdf, website searched May 2004.
Jeanette De Varis, “A Three-Tiered Decision Tree Triage Strategy for

Alternative Child Custody Disputes”, The New Jersey Family Court
Conciliator. New Jersey Chapter of Family and Conciliation Courts,
Spring 2002. http://www.psychologyinfo.com/NJ-AFCC/spring2002.html,
Multi-Door Courthouse
Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution. Adversarial Background Paper 2,

Australian Law Reform Commission, December 1996.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/2/alternative.html#
5.Referralsystems-Themultidoorcourthouse, website copyright © 2001.
Multi-Door ADR Resolution Center is a Success in Washington, D.C. U.S.
International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/rule_of_law/Argentina_Justice_Und
ergoing_Change/MultiDoor_ADR_Resolution_Center_Is_a_Success_in_
Washington_D.html, website searched 25 May 2004.
R-1
“Multi-Door Courthouse”, Alternate Dispute Resolution Reference.

adr.Martindale.com, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, New Providence, NJ.
http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Dispute_Resolution/ADR_Refe
rence/Service_Roles/multi-door_courthouse.xml, latest update February,
2002.
“Multi-Door Courthouse”, Dispute Resolution Glossary of Terms, Boston Law

Collaborative, Boston, Massachusetts.
http://www.bostonlawcollaborative.com/documents/, website searched 13
May 2004.
JURISDICTIONS
Australia
Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution. Adversarial Background Paper 2,

Australian Law Reform Commission, December 1996.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/2/alternative.html#
5.Referralsystems-Themultidoorcourthouse, website copyright © 2001.
Case Management Directions. Practice Direction 3 - 2002, Family Court of

Australia, effective date: 1 August 2002.
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/cmd/cmd.pdf, website searched May 2004.
Foster, Richard. Triage in Family Court Services: Doing More With Less.
presentation at AFCC 39th Annual Conference, 5-8 June 2002. Family
Court of Australia.
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/foster.html, website copyright
© 2004.
Maynard, Peter. Manager Strategy and Review, National Support Office,

Family Court of Australia. Email communications, July 2004.
peter.maynard@familycourt.gov.au.
“Project Mercury – National Implementation”, excerpts from pages on the

Family Court of Australia Intranet, provided by Peter Maynard, Manager
Strategy and Review, National Support Office, Family Court of Australia.
Sanderson, Hugh. Senior Deputy Registrar, Parramatta Registry, Family Court

of Australia. Email communications, June 2004.
Hugh.Sanderson@familycourt.gov.au.
Step by Step Guide to Proceedings in Family Court: Flow Chart. Family

Court of Australia.
R-2
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/guide/html/flowchart.html, latest update 18

October 2002.
The Integrated Client Services Scheme — Case Conferences. Response of the

Family Court of Australia to ALRC Discussion Paper 62 entitled Review
of the Federal Civil Justice System: Appendix 7. Family Court of
Australia. http://www.familycourt.gov.au/court/html/alrcapp6.html,
website copyright © 2004.
Canada
General References
An Inventory of Government-Based Services That Support the Making and

Enforcement of Custody and Access Decisions. The Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Family Law Committee, January 2000.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/pad/reports/invent/main.htm, website
created 27 February 2004.
Federal Funding of Provincial and Territorial Child Support, Support

Enforcement, and Child Custody and Access Projects 1997 - 2001. (End
Notes), Department of Justice Canada, 2003.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/Implementation1997_2001_files/i
mplementation1997_2001_notes.html, website created 20 January 2004.
“Parenting After Divorce: Reports and Research”, Programs and Services.

Department of Justice Canada.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/pad/reports/index.html, website searched
May 2004.
Unified Family Court. Background and Discussion Paper #1, B.C. Justice
Review Task Force, 7 October 2002.
http://www.bcjusticereview.org/recent_announcements/2002/jrtf_paper_10
_07_02.pdf, website searched May 2004.
Manitoba
Balagus, Kathy. Coordinator, For the Sake of the Children. Family

Conciliation Branch, Family Services and Housing, Province of Manitoba.
Email and telephone communications, June 2004. kbalagus@gov.mb.ca.
R-3
Family Conciliation. Family Services and Housing, Province of Manitoba.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/childfam/family_conciliation.html, website
searched May 2004.
Mediation. Manitoba Family Services and Housing, Province of Manitoba.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/childfam/mediation.html, latest update May 2004.
New Brunswick
Guravich, Michael. Family Operational Consultant, Program Support Branch,

Court Services, New Brunswick. E-mail and telephone communications,
June 2004. Michael.guravich@gnb.ca
Newfoundland
Unified Family Court. News Bulletin, Law Society of Newfoundland. 21

August 2003. http://www.lawsociety.nf.ca/news/bulletin.htm, website
searched May 2004.
Ontario
“Family Information Sessions at the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto”,

Parent Information Sessions. Ministry of Attorney General, Government
of Ontario. 20 December 2002.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/parentinfo.asp,
Superior Court of Justice: Family Court Branch. Ontario Courts, Government

of Ontario. August 2000.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/family_court/overview.htm, website
searched May 2004.
Quebec
“Family Mediation”. Publications and Forms. Justice Quebec, Gouvernement

du Quebec,
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/mediation-
a.htm, latest update 11 March 2003.
“Regulation Respecting Family Mediation”, Code of Civil Procedure (R.S.Q.,

c. C-25, a. 827.3 and 827.4), Communication-Quebec, ministere des
Relations avec les citoyens et de l’Immigration, Gouvernement du Quebec.
http://publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?typ
e=2&file=/C_25/C25R2_1_A.HTM, latest update 8 June 2004.
R-4
When a Couple Separates. Communication-Quebec, ministere des Relations

avec les citoyens et de l’Immigration, Gouvernement du Quebec. 2003.
Sakatchewan
Family Law Division & Related Family Law Support Services. Saskatchewan
Justice, Government of Saskatchewan,
http://www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/Family_Law/services/publicedu.shtml,
latest update 22 June 2004.
“Family Mediation”, Dispute Resolution Office. Saskatchewan Justice,

Government of Saskatchewan,
http://www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/DisputeResolution/family-
mediation.shtml, latest update 22 June 2004.
United Kingdom
Divorce and Family, Court Service, Department for Constitutional Affairs,

U.K. http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/index.htm, latest update
6 October 2003.
Family Advice and Information Service Pilot Project (FAInS, Legal Services
Commission, London, U.K. http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/fains/,
United States
California
“ADR Southern District of California”, excerpted from ADR and Settlement in

the Federal District Courts: A Sourcebook for Judges and Lawyers,
Federal Judicial Center and CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, 1996.
http://www.fjc.gov/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/pages/709?OpenDocument&Click
, website searched May 2004.
California’s Child Support Commissioner System: An Evaluation of the First

Two Years of the Program. Judicial Council of California/Administrative
Office of the Courts, May 2000.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/evaluati.pdf, website
searched May 2004.
Fact Sheet: Child Support Commissioner and Family Law Facilitator
R-5
Program. Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the

Courts, January 2004.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/childsup.pdf, website
searched May 2004.
Family Law Facilitator in Your County, Self-Help Centre, California Courts.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/lowcost/flfcounty.htm#sanmateo,
Questions and Answers About Family Law Facilitators, Self-Help Centre,

California Courts. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/lowcost/qa-
flf.htm#top, website searched May 2004.
San Mateo County Family Law Facilitator’s Offices, Superior Court of

California, County of San Mateo, 2003.
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/director.php?filename=./adr/flfaciliator.html
#type, website searched May 2004.
Colorado
Thoennes, Nancy. Evaluation of the Arapahoe County and El Paso County

GAL/CASA Pilots. Center for Policy Research, Denver, Colorado,
September 1999.
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/reports/CASA.pdf, website
searched May 2004.
Connecticut
Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation. Judicial Branch, State of
Connecticut, http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/super/altdisp.htm, website
copyright © 2004.
“Family Case Management Procedures”, New Haven JD – Family Standing

Orders. Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut,
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/super/StandOrders/newhaven.htm,
Frauenglass, Lloyd and Eisenberg, Deborah. Connecticut Family Court

System. Connecticut Bar Association.
http://www.ctbar.org/filemanager/download/43/medialaw_ct%20family%2
0court.pdf, website copyright © 2004.
R-6
Kulak, Debra. Court Support Services Division, State of Connecticut, Judicial

Branch. Hartford, Connecticut. Telephone communications, July 2004.
Debra.Kulak@jud.state.ct.us.
“Special Master”, Non-Judicial Officers. Judicial Branch, State of

Connecticut, http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/super/nonjud.htm, website
copyright © 2004.
Deleware
“Delaware”, Pro Se or Self-Representation. Office of Justice Initiatives

American Bar Association.
http://www.abanet.org/justice/01summary/state/delaware.pdf, website
searched May 2004..
Florida
Court Care Center. 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County Courthouse, Orlando
Florida, http://ninja9.org/courtadmin/familyintake/courtcarecenter.htm,
website searched June 2004.
9th Judicial Circuit — Orange and Osceola Counties. Judicial Circuit Court of
Florida. http://www.flcourts.org/osca/divisions/family/fam9.pdf, website
searched June 2004.
Maryland
Cassel, Jennifer K., Triage Services. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, undated document.
Family Law. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

http://www.circuitcourt.org/Family%20Law/family.htm, website searched
21 June 2004.
Understanding and Preparing for the Family Law Scheduling Conference.

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
http://www.circuitcourt.org/Family%20Law/family%20brochure.htm,
website searched 21 June 2004.
Massachusetts
Middlesex Multi-Door Courthouse: What’s MMDC? National Center for

Citizen Participation in the Administration of Justice, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. http://www.multidoor.org/MMDC/Content/Whats-
MMDC.html, website copyright © 2002-2004.
R-7
Michigan
9th Judicial Circuit Court: Domestic Intake. Kalamazoo County Government,

Kalamazoo, Michigan.
http://www.kalcounty.com/courts/admin/domestic-intake.htm, website
copyright © 2003.
Missouri
Domestic Relations Service: Service Categories, Family Court of St. Louis

County, St. Louis County, Missouri, website searched June 2004.
Family Court Guide. Community Relations Office of the Family Court,

Family Court of St. Louis County, March 2002. http://www.co.st-
louis.mo.us/circuitcourt/familycourtguide.pdf, website searched May 2004.
Weber, Tom. Family Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. E-mail

communications, 14 June 2004. TWeber@stlouisco.com
Ohio
Hurst Jr., Hunter and Halemba, Gregg. Features of a Full Service Family
Court Ohio Family Court Bulletin, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Fall 2001.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Judicial_and_Court_Services/family_court/v
ol2num3.pdf, website searched May 2004.
Oregon
“Domestic Relations Mediation”, Family Court Services, Clackamas County

Information Services, Clackamas County, Oregon.
http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/fcs/domestic_relations.htm, latest update 7
May 2004.
Pennsylvania
“First Filing Unit”, Municipal Court – Civil Division. First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
http://courts.phila.gov/municipal/civil/#drp, website copyright © 1997 to
2003.
R-8
Virginia
D.C. Superior Court Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division. District of

Columbia Bar, Washington D.C.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_the_public/going_to_court/multi_door_dispute
_resolution_division/index.cfm, website copyright © 2004.
Multi-Door ADR Resolution Center is a Success in Washington, D.C. U.S.

International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/rule_of_law/Argentina_Justice_Un
dergoing_Change/MultiDoor_ADR_Resolution_Center_Is_a_Success_in
_Washington_D.html, website searched 25 May 2004.
R-9
APPENDIX
DETAIL OF PROGRAMS IN SELECTED JURISDICTIONS
A-1
I. DETAIL OF PROGRAMS IN SELECTED JURISDICTIONS
This survey revealed, not surprisingly, that there are a huge variety of types of
processes or programs that might be described as early assessment processes for
family cases. In general, however, these processes can be classified into two broad
categories: community-based or non-court programs, and court-based programs.
Details have not been provided about all the programs examined in the various
jurisdictions surveyed. Rather, programs were selected and described, below, if they
offer a broad-based, more holistic service, or simply employ interesting techniques in
their assessment processes that may have some application in the development of an
early assessment process for family disputes in B.C.
The following assessment programs or processes are included in this appendix:
Community-Based Programs
¾ Information and Referral Service, Manitoba
¾ Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS), U.K.
Court-Based Programs
¾ Family Law Facilitator, California
¾ Early Assessment in Multi-Door Courthouses: Various Jurisdictions
¾ Early Assessment in Unified Family Courts: New Brunswick
¾ Assessment Processes Connected With Case Management Mechanisms:
Various Jurisdictions
A. Community-Based Programs
Although every jurisdiction surveyed had many community programs that provided
support to families in respect of almost any need, very few of these programs had any
direct connection with the family justice system. Two programs, in particular, stand
out as exceptions: the “Information and Referral Service” in Manitoba, and the
“Family Advice and Information Service” (FAInS) in the U.K.
These two programs were also unique among all the programs reviewed — both
community and court-based — in the scope of their assessment and referral processes.
They appeared to have the most broad-based applications, with the most inter-
disciplinary approaches to the assessment of client needs and referral, of all those
surveyed.
A-2
i. Information and Referral Service

Family Conciliation Offices
Manitoba Department of Family Services and Housing
Overview:
Individuals and families are assisted in identifying problems and possible
solutions. A determination is made of where service can best be provided (by
Family Conciliation Services Branch, lawyers or the court, or agencies in the
community as may be appropriate to their situation), and clients are
accordingly referred. The office has a close working relationship with and
takes referrals from the Family Division of Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s
Bench.
Assessment Officer: Qualified Social Worker.
Meeting Format:
One-on-one, typically by telephone at time of initial contact; service may be
provided at various points until a dispute is resolved.
Access Mechanism:
Voluntary; self-referrals or referrals from other community/justice agencies.
Evaluation Results: None available.
Notes:
This is largely an intake process for the following related services offered by
Family Conciliation Offices: parent information program; mediation;
conciliation counselling; support and education program for children; brief
consultation services (court-referred, for parents regarding older children ages
11 to 16); and court ordered assessments.
The Manitoba Family Conciliation Office in Winnipeg is exploring a “triage”

process, but early indications are that this would be based more on a crisis
intervention model, and largely oriented to families “at risk”, than to linking
clients with more general family support services
ii. Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS)

Legal Services Commission
London, U.K.
Overview:
FAInS is a pilot project launched officially in the spring of 2003 (following a
pre-pilot phase of approximately 2 years), and is expected to conclude in the
spring of 2006. The pilot opened initially in ten sites around England and
A-3
Wales, but is still expanding to other locations as the project progresses.
In each pilot site, client services are provided by a solicitor who is able to
provide legal advice (and if necessary legal representation), but also helps to
identify other specialized services, e.g., family counselling, debt counselling,
mediation, etc. The solicitor “acts as the client's 'case manager' as the client
addresses his or her issues”9 at any time in the course of resolving a family
dispute.
Assessment Officer:
Currently, private Family Solicitors (pre-project research showed that 81% of
people experiencing family or relationship difficulties chose to visit a family
solicitor); however, they are looking at other models or access points as well,
e.g., mediation services, in which other professionals would be the ‘case
manager’.
Meeting Format:
One-on-one, in-person meeting; service may be provided at various points
until a dispute is resolved.
Access Mechanism:
Evaluation Results:
In progress; a research program supporting the FAInS project is focussing on
processes and outcomes in an effort to inform and influence the future
direction of the service.
Notes:
Significant research — prior to the launch of the pilot, during a pre-pilot phase,
and now during the full pilot phase — is featured as a key element of this
project.
The FAInS project identifies the need to establish inter-disciplinary networks

to support the project as of primary importance in its success, including: family
and relationship support services, debt counselling and financial advice,
specialist welfare benefits advice, support for children and young people, and
specialist support and advice for parents. One of the key aims of the project is
to identify the types of agencies that need to be in the network, how they can
best be funded, and the role that central government plays in this.
B. Court-Based Programs
9
“How does it Work?”, Family Advice and Information Service Pilot Project (FAInS), Legal Services
Commission, London, U.K. http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/fains/, website copyright © 2000.
A-4
In the same way that very few community-based programs were connected with the
services available through the courts, few court-based early assessment programs were
oriented to services outside the court system — although there may well be informal
mechanisms by which clients may be made aware of or referred to resources in the
community. California’s Family Law Facilitator appears to be one of the exceptions.
Most of the other court-based assessment processes explored in the context of the
survey were components of a case management process: processes designed to
expedite the court process, or in some instances, screen out cases where settlements
are possible or ADR is suitable. If not part of a case management process, the next
most frequent court-based assessment processes at an early stage in the justice process
were typically attached to courts classified as operating under a “multi-door” or
“unified family court” concept of justice delivery.
i. Office of the Family Law Facilitator

Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts
California
Overview:
The Office of the Family Law Facilitator provides services for un-represented
couples concerning child and sometimes spousal support issues. Following an
initial meeting (either individual, couple, or group), the family law facilitator
provides information materials on how to establish parentage, or get, change,
or enforce child or spousal support orders. They can also provide court forms,
assist in forms completion, help determine support amounts, and arrange
referrals (to child support agencies, family court services, other community
agencies).
Service varies from county-to-county, but the basic framework is mandated

under the California Family Code and the office is administered/funded by the
Administrative Office of the Courts (a branch of the Judicial Council of
California).
Assessment Officer: Family law attorney.
Meeting Format:
Initial meeting may be an individual, couple, or group meeting; clients must
first prepare a “disclosure form” prior to meeting with the family law
facilitator.
A-5
Access Mechanism:
Evaluation Results:
An evaluation of the larger Child Support Commissioner System in California
— of which the Family Law Facilitator is a part — was completed in 2002.
The evaluation focussed on access to the child support process, speed and
efficiency in processing child support cases in the courts, conflict between
parties, working relationships between system partners, fairness, customer
satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and professional development opportunities.
Largely positive results were recorded in all these areas. Unfortunately, the
evaluation did not specifically address the assessment process, as distinct from
the other services provided by the office.
Notes:
The restricted definition of eligible family cases in this model — typically
child support only — is fairly limiting in its application to a broader-based
family triage process.
ii. Early Assessment in Multi-Door Courthouses: Various Locations
Overview:
Multi-door courthouses are featured as being accessed centrally, but with many
doors opening into a variety of forms of dispute resolution. The “Dispute
Resolution Reference” in Martindale.Com describes the concept as follows:
“Rather than simply adding all cases to the litigation docket, multi-door
courthouses direct disputants to "intake specialists" (emphasis added)
who assess the disputes and determine the optimal routes to resolution.
Those routes may include assistance from community resource centers,
early neutral evaluation, mediation, arbitration, mini trial, summary
jury trial, or litigation, among others.”10
The multi-door concept is used in connection with a variety of case types,

typically family, small claims, and a range of other civil law matters.
References can be found to a variety of different applications of the multi-door

courthouse world-wide, including: in Canada, Hamilton Unified Family Court,
and Toronto Superior Family Court; in the U.S., Middlesex and Worcester,
Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Houston, Texas, and Tulsa, Oklahoma;
world-wide, Argentina, Singapore, Nigeria, and Portugal.
10
“Multi-Door Courthouse”, Alternate Dispute Resolution Reference. adr.Martindale.com, LexisNexis
Martindale-Hubbell, New Providence, NJ.
http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Dispute_Resolution/ADR_Reference/Service_Roles/multi-
door_courthouse.xml, latest update February, 2002.
A-6
Assessment Officer:
Variable — may be an intake officer with a clerical background (where
preliminary intake data is collected, rather than a detailed assessment
undertaken), or may be a mediator, quasi-judicial officer, or other professional
with a legal or social work background.
Meeting Format:
One-on-one, in-person meeting, typically at time of first contact with the court.
Access Mechanism:
Evaluation Results:
Largely anecdotal evidence of success is available. Little is written about the
intake process established for these courts. The Australian Law Reform
Commission was, however, critical of multi-door courthouses for inadequate
or poorly integrated intake and referral processes in their paper on “Alternate
or Assisted Dispute Resolution”.11
Notes:
While appealing in theory, multi-door courthouses appear not to have been
fully implemented in the manner originally intended by the concept’s founder,
Professor Frank Sanders. Since no universal or standard features of a multi-
door courthouse have been identified, models vary greatly from location to
location.
iii. Early Assessment in Unified Family Courts: New Brunswick
Program Support Branch

Court Services, Ministry of Justice
New Brunswick
The “unified family court” concept is already very familiar to the FJRWG. Only New
Brunswick’s intake/assessment process is presented here as a unique example of one
applied in a unified family court.
11
“The Multi-Door Courthouse”, Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution. Adversarial Background
Paper 2, Australian Law Reform Commission, December 1996.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/2/alternative.html#5.Referralsystems-
Themultidoorcourthouse, website copyright © 2001.
A-7
Overview:
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division has a well-
established “social arm” that pre-dates the introduction of the unified family
court in 1982. Anyone looking for information and assistance with issues
arising from separation and divorce may see a Court Social Worker (CSW).
CSWs conduct an intake assessment for a range of counselling services as well

as mediation, conciliation, and other ADR services — in addition to the
regular court process. Clients are also connected with relevant services in the
community. The intake process is unique in providing an eligibility
assessment for Legal Aid New Brunswick as part of the process. Violence
screening with the help of an abuse assessment tool developed by Dr. Linda
Neilson of the University of New Brunswick is also undertaken at this time, as
mediation and other conciliation services are not offered to clients where there
has been a history of abuse.
Assessment Officer:
Court Social Worker, with a degree in social work and membership in good
standing with the NB Association of Social Workers; approximately half are
also certified mediators with Family Mediation Canada; others have mediation
training and other certification.
Access Mechanism:
Meeting Format:
One-on-one, in-person meeting, of approximately 1 hour in duration.
Evaluation Results:
No formal evaluation is available, and no outcomes expressed specifically in
connection with the intake/assessment process. The success rate of the ADR
methods utilized is thought to be about 65% to 70% ending in complete
agreement, and about 15% to 20% in partial agreement. Only about 15% of
cases proceed through the more traditional adversarial route.
Notes:
The well-established, very well integrated characteristics of the intake
assessment process in New Brunswick is, in part, a result of the structure of the
legal aid program in the province. Legal aid for family cases is not means
tested, but it is only available to those for whom mediation is contra-indicated.
If an abuse assessment discloses a history of abuse, mediation and other
conciliation services are not offered, but Legal Aid New Brunswick will make
the services of a family solicitor available.
iv. Assessment Processes Connected With Case Management Mechanisms:
A-8
Various Locations
Overview:
In some jurisdictions, there is a procedural step or conferencing process that

could be described as an early case assessment or triage process at the post-
application stage of a family law matter. These processes form part of case
management mechanism and are designed to either screen out cases where
settlements are possible or ADR is suitable, or, if not possible/suitable,
expedite the court process. Some examples include:
In Australia:
The Family Court of Australia’s Family Court Case Management Guidelines
(practice direction) recognizes a three-phase approach to case management: 1)
prevention (non-court ADR options), 2) resolution, and 3) determination. The
prevention phase lies outside the court’s purview, and no centralized access
point is identified. The resolution phase, however, includes a “case assessment
conference” — that can be classified as a form of early assessment process —
in which individuals may be directed into conciliation counselling, mediation,
and other court-based dispute resolution programs.
In Connecticut:
Counsellors with the Family Services office attached to the court attend court
on a weekly basis to “negotiate” short calendar and contempt calendar motions
before they are heard in court. At the negotiation, a determination is made
about whether the matter is likely to settle by means of mediation or other
ADR service available through the office. Limited contested cases (typically
financial matters) that do not settle at the negotiation stage may go to a tiered
settlement conference process: tier one, before a Special Master; and tier two,
before a retired judge. Only fully contested matters proceed to trial.
In the Southern District of California:

On an experimental basis, early neutral evaluation (ENE) conferences are
mandatory in all civil cases, including family. The conferences are informal,
and off-the-record, and involve an exploration of available court-sponsored
ADR options as well as the conventional ENE process. If the ENE conference
does not produce a settlement, the judge may refer the case — with or without
party consent — to one of the court’s other ADR processes including:
mediation, arbitration, mini trial, and judicial settlement conference.
In Anne Arundel County, Maryland:

At the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, scheduling
conferences are conducted to determine how a case will proceed. These
conferences are seen as an early opportunity to determine what court resources
can be of assistance to the parties and the family, and as a means of facilitating
A-9
early settlement. The court is supported by ancillary services that offer

counselling support as well as a range of court-sponsored ADR programs. If
pedente lite issues (issues for temporary resolution until trial) cannot be agreed
upon during the scheduling conference, a “facilitator” — an experienced
family lawyers acting as a neutral third party — may be called upon to assist in
a determination of these issues.
Assessment Officer:
In Australia:
Case assessment conferences are conducted by a legally-trained Deputy
Registrar in cases involving property; a Court Mediator who is a qualified
social worker in cases involving children’s issues; both Deputy Registrar and
Court Mediator in cases involving both property and children’s issues.
In Connecticut:
Counsellors who conduct “negotiations” typically hold a masters degree in the
social sciences (either in social work or psychology), although there are also
some attorneys. They must complete 180 hours of prior training, and meet
stringent annual continuing education requirements. The Special Masters who
conduct tier 1 “settlement conferences” work in pairs comprised of two Family
Services Counsellors/Supervisors, two attorneys (acting on a volunteer basis),
or a counsellor-attorney combination.
In the Southern District of California:

Early neutral evaluation conferences are held with a district or magistrate
judge.
In Anne Arundel County, Maryland:

Scheduling conferences are held with a judge or master. Facilitators are
experienced family lawyers.
Meeting Format:
Typically both parties, and their lawyers, are present for the conference or
meeting; in some instances, there may be a prior individual meeting in the
event that an abusive history is disclosed.
Access Mechanism:
Mandatory; typically by practice direction or standing order.
A-10
Evaluation Results:
Results on completion of “Project Mercury” — the project through which the
Family Court of Australia implemented the case assessment conference
country-wide, with the exception of the State of Western Australia — found
that about 30% of applications for final orders, and about 40% of applications
for interim orders, settle at the conclusion of an assessment conference.12
Early neutral evaluation in the Southern District of California is still

experimental — results are not yet available. Evaluation results were not
obtained for the conferencing processes in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, or
Connecticut.
Notes:
While conferencing and other assessment procedures as part of a case
management process do not, perhaps, occur early enough to be fully a “stage
1” assessment process, these processes have many of the same objectives and
involve a similar approach to assessment as those that occur earlier. Their
mandatory nature, however, provides a different dynamic — in part because of
the compulsory participation of both parties, in part because of the added
authority of the people conducting these assessments.
12
“Project Mercury – National Implementation”, excerpts from pages on the Family Court of Australia
Intranet, provided by Peter Maynard, Manager Strategy and Review, National Support Office, Family
Court of Australia.
A-11

Cross Jurisdictional Survey of Family Case Assessment in Family Disputes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cross Jurisdictional Survey of Family Case Assessment in Family Disputes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY OF EARLY CASE

ASSESSMENT IN FAMILY DISPUTES

The Family Justice Reform Working Group

1649 Brousson Drive

Tel: (250) 721-6999

II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 3

A. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes 3

Detail of Programs in Selected Jurisdictions

1. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes

2. Points and Modes of Access

¾ while “early” assessment was highlighted as of primary importance in most of the

(interesting applications: “Information and Referral Service” at the Family

Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division includes legal aid intake/eligibility

¾ early assessment processes in all jurisdictions involve people with specialized

professionals, or both — social workers, psychologists, mediators, lawyers, quasi-

¾ broad-based early assessment or “triage” processes that operate with a view to

“… complete research, analysis and consultation necessary to develop

The Working Group approached about surveying

also provided about the qualifications of the assessment officer(s) performing

There are many lessons to be learned from the experiences of other

B. Project Scope and Methodology

As already mentioned, the focus was on assessment processes that occur in

Services or processes that involved gathering only basic “tombstone”

II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

A. Purpose/Orientation of Early Assessment Processes

There are, nevertheless, some interesting examples of where court-based

and saving limited court resources by encouraging early or out-of-court

Facilitating In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the scheduling conference is held by a

If a settlement does not occur following a negotiation, “limited contested”

Few programs in the jurisdictions surveyed were found to be stand-alone,

Broad, FAInS is a pilot project operating in numerous locations throughout England

B. Points and Modes of Access

The two community-based programs discussed in the previous section again

Voluntary access Voluntary-access assessment processes, whether community or court-based,

Mandatory Mandatory-access, court-based assessment processes are either a procedural

Information pertinent to a violence screening process is also gathered, and the

In a “Multi-Door courthouse,” cases are screened by an intake office, which

Multi-door courthouses appear not to have been implemented in the way

Telephone Telephone intake or assessment was uncommon, but it is identified as

An exception Early assessment in most voluntary programs initiated at a pre-filing stage is

Court-based assessment processes that are part of a case management

¾ the extent to which family clients categorize/perceive their issues in either

for resolving their own issues.

Alternate Dispute Resolution

“Non-Adversarial Case Resolution”, Factsheets/Publications. Administration

Jeanette De Varis, “A Three-Tiered Decision Tree Triage Strategy for

Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution. Adversarial Background Paper 2,

“Multi-Door Courthouse”, Alternate Dispute Resolution Reference.

“Multi-Door Courthouse”, Dispute Resolution Glossary of Terms, Boston Law

Alternate or Assisted Dispute Resolution. Adversarial Background Paper 2,

Case Management Directions. Practice Direction 3 - 2002, Family Court of

Maynard, Peter. Manager Strategy and Review, National Support Office,

“Project Mercury – National Implementation”, excerpts from pages on the

Sanderson, Hugh. Senior Deputy Registrar, Parramatta Registry, Family Court

Step by Step Guide to Proceedings in Family Court: Flow Chart. Family

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/guide/html/flowchart.html, latest update 18

The Integrated Client Services Scheme — Case Conferences. Response of the

An Inventory of Government-Based Services That Support the Making and

Federal Funding of Provincial and Territorial Child Support, Support

“Parenting After Divorce: Reports and Research”, Programs and Services.

Balagus, Kathy. Coordinator, For the Sake of the Children. Family

Family Conciliation. Family Services and Housing, Province of Manitoba.

Mediation. Manitoba Family Services and Housing, Province of Manitoba.