Private and public voices: Does family group conferencing privilege the voice of children and families in child welfare?

References

• Beek, F. (2004). Eigen Kracht Conferences: the first experiences in the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.eigen-kracht.nl/sites/default/files/EKC+first+experiences+2004.pdf [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite, V., Harris, N., & Ivec, M. (2009). Seeking to clarify child protection's regulatory principles. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 4, 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J., & Roberts, C. (2009). Openness and transparency' in the family courts: What experience in other countries tells us about reform in England and Wales. In Family policy briefing 5. Oxford: Oxford University Department of Social Policy and Social Work. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/media-access-family-courts [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Cavendish, C. (2008). Family justice: The secret state that steals our children'. The Times. 6 July. Retrieved from http://www.whale.to/a/camilla_cavendish.html [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Chandler, S., & Giovannucci, M. (2004). Family group conferences: Transforming traditional child welfare policy and practice. Family Court Review, 42, 216–231.
   Google Scholar
• Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service. (2013). The work of children's guardians. London: Cafcass.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, M. (2005). Fifteen years of family group conferencing: Coordinators talk about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 523–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, M. (2006). Up front and personal: Confronting dynamics in the family group conference. Family Process, 45, 345–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, M. (2009). Family group conferences in child welfare: The fit with restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 12, September309–319.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, M., & Morris, K. (2012). Understanding child and family welfare: Statutory responses to children at risk. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, M., & Ward, T. (2008). Morals, rights and practice in the human services: Effective and fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Crow, G., Marsh, P., & Holton, E. (2004). Supporting pupils, schools and families: An evaluation of the hampshire family group conferences in education project. Sheffield: University of Sheffield and Hampshire County Council.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, P., Scott, D., & Scales, B. (2012). Report of the Protecting Victoria's Vulnerable Children Inquiry. Melbourne: Department of Premier and Cabinet. January 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. (2013). Working together to safeguard children. London: TSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education (DfE). (2014). Statutory guidance on court orders and pre-proceedings. London: DfE.
   Google Scholar
• Eekelaar, J. (1994). The interests of the child and the child's wishes: The role of dynamic self-determinism. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 8, 42–61.
   Google Scholar
• Eekelaar, J. (2004). Personal rights and human rights. In P.Lødrup & E.Modvar (Eds.), Family law and human right (pp. 179–194). Oslo: Gyldendal.
   Google Scholar
• Falck, S. (2008). Do family group conferences lead to a better situation for the children involved?Oslo: NOVA (Norwegian Social Research), Ministry of Education and Research.
   Google Scholar
• Family Justice Council. (2010). Guidelines for judges meeting children who are subject to family proceedings. London: Family Justice Council. Retrieved from http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2FDocuments%2FFJC%2Fvoc%2FGuidelines_+Judges_seeing_+Children.pdf [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Family Rights Group (FRG). (2012). Written evidence to the justice committee pre-legislative scrutiny of the children and families bill 2012 H.C 739. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/739/739vw01.htm [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Fortin, J. (2009). Children's rights and the developing law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, M. (2010). The human rights of children. Current Legal Problems, 63(1), 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2008). Family group conferencing in Australia 15 years onIssues, No 27. Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Family Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, K., Darlington, Y., & Yellowlees, J. (2012). Family participation in child protection practice: An observational study of family group meetings. Child & Family Social Work, 17(1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.M. Government. (2008). Information sharing: Guidance for practitioners and managers. London: Department of Children, Schools and Families.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, S., Aziz, Q., & Robinson, A. (2007). The development of an all-Wales evaluation tool for family group conferences: Final research report. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, S., Scourfield, J., O'Neill, S., & Pithouse, A. (2005). Democratising the family and the state? The case of family group conferences in child welfare. Journal of Social Policy, 34, 59–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Laws, S., & Kirby, P. (2007). Under the table or at the table: Supporting children and families in family group conferences – a summary of the Daybreak research. Brighton: Brighton and Hove Children and Young People's Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, C., & Nixon, P. (1999). Empowering practice: A critical appraisal of the family group conference approach. Bristol: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family group conferences in child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., Dickens, J., Bader, K., & Young, J. (2013). Partnership by law? The pre-proceedings process for families on the edge of care proceedings. Bristol: School of Law Bristol University. Retrieved from http://www.bris.ac.uk/law/research/researchpublications/ [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2008). Family justice in viewCm 7502. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Social Development [MSD]. (2011). Annual report: 2010/2011. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, K. (2007). Camden FGC service: An evaluation of service use and outcomes. September. Retrieved from http://www.frg.org.uk/pdfs/Camden%20FGC%20Service.pdf. [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Morris, K., & Connolly, M. (2010). Family decision-making in child welfare: Challenges in developing a knowledge base for practice. Child Abuse Review. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1002/car.1143.
   Google Scholar
• Munby, J. (2014). Transparency and the family courts, practice guidance. Retrieved from http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/transparency-in-the-family-courts-jan2014.pdf [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Nickel, J. W. (2007). Making sense of human rights (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). (2012). Right on Time: Exploring delays in adoption.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, J., Masson, J., & Bader, K. (2011). Just following instructions? The representation of parents in care proceedings. Bristol: School of Law, Bristol University. Retrieved from www.bristol.ac.uk/law/research/researchpublications/2011/justfollowinginstructions.pdf [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, I. (1999). Democratic justice. US: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Stanford Institute of Public Policy. (2006). Multiple response system (MRS) Evaluation report to the North Carolina Division of Social Services (NCDSS). Durham, NC: Duke University, Center for Child and Family Policy. Retrieved from www.ncdhhs.gov/dss/publications/docs/mrs_eval_rpt_6_30_06_all_combined.pdf [accessed 25 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C., Lowe, N., & Beckford, V. (1999). Adopted children speaking. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.
   Google Scholar
• Titcomb, A., & LeCroy, C. (2003). Evaluation of Arizona's family group decision making programme. Protecting Children, 18, 58–64.
   Google Scholar
• Titcomb, A., & LeCroy, C. (2005). Outcomes of Arizona's family group decision making programme. Protecting Children, 19, 47–53.
   Google Scholar