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

References

• Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., 2003. Engaging parents and carers with family support services: what can be learned from research on help-seeking. Child and Family Social Work, 8, 341–350.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K. and Mason, C., 2017. Birth parents & the collateral consequences of court-ordered child removal: towards a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31, 41–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, R. and Ward, H., 2013. Decision-making within a child ’ s timeframe: an overview of current research evidence for family justive professionals concerning child development and the impact of maltreatment. London: Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre (CWRC).
   Google Scholar
• Children’s Hearings Scotland., 2012. National Standards for the Children’s Panel. Edinburgh: Children's Hearings Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• Children’s Hearings Scotland., 2018. National Training for Children’s Panel and Area Support Team members: CHS Training Unit Prospectus 2018. Edinburgh: Children’s Hearings Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• Cott, C., 1998. Structure and meaning in multidisciplinary teamwork. Sociology of Health and Illness, 20, 848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couturier, Y., et al., 2008. The interdisciplinary condition of work in relational professions of the health and social care field: A theoretical standpoint. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 341–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowperthwaite, D.J., 1988. The emergence of the scottish children’s hearings system. Southampton: Institue of Criminal Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, T.P., et al., 2012. Child welfare policy and practice on children’s exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 210–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickens, J., 2005. Being ‘the epitome of reason’: the challenges for lawyers and social workers in child care proceedings. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 19, 73–101.
   Google Scholar
• Dickens, J., 2006. Care, control and change in child care proceedings: dilemmas for social workers, managers and lawyers. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 23–32.
   Google Scholar
• Dickens, J., 2007. Social work, law, money and trust: paying for lawyers in child protection work. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28, 283–295.
   Google Scholar
• Dickens, J. and Masson, J., 2016. The courts and child protection social work in england: tail wags dog? British Journal of Social Work, 46, 355–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dombeck, M.T., 1997. Professional personhood: training, territoriality and tolerance. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 11, 9–21.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, J.J., 2013. Causal effects of foster care: an instrumental-variables approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1143–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights. 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, B., et al., 2011. Advocacy for parents and carers involved with children’s services: making a difference to working in partnership? Child & Family Social Work, 16, 266–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, D., 1999. The Human Rights Act 1998 and constitutional principles*. Legal Studies, 19, 165–206.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester, D., Westlake, D., and Glynn, G., 2012. Parental resistance and social worker skills: towards a theory of motivational social work. Child and Family Social Work, 17, 118–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G., 2002. Qualitative Data Analysis: explorations with NVivo. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilligan, R., 2000. The developmental implications for children of life in public care: irish and international perspectives. Irish Journal of Psychology, 21, 138–153.
   Google Scholar
• Goldis, G., 2014. When family courts shun adversarialism. University of Califoria Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 18, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Goldson, B. and Muncie, J., 2012. Towards a global ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40, 47–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, A. and Kandel, R.F., 2000. Hearing children in children’s hearings. Child & Family Law Quarterly, 12 (3), 283–300.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. and Lloyd-Jones, E., 2010. The representation of children and their parents in public law proceedings since the Children Act 1989. high hopes and lost opportunities Journal of Children’s Services, 5, 64–71.
   Google Scholar
• Hardcastle, G.W., 2005. Adversarialism and the family court: a family court judge’s perspective. University of Califoria Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 57, 65–66.
   Google Scholar
• Harwin, J., et al., 2013. Strengthening prospects for safe and lasting family reunification: can a Family Drug and Alcohol Court make a contribution? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35, 459–474.
   Google Scholar
• Harwin, J., et al., 2018. Tensions and contradictions in family court innovation with high risk parents: the place of family drug treatment courts in contemporary family justice. International Journal of Drug Policy, 68, 101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, M., et al., 2002. Safeguarding children in Scotland: the perspectives of children, parents and safeguarders. Representing Children, 16, 169–183.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, M., Lockyer, A., and Stone, F., eds., 2007. Youth Justice and Child Protection. London: Jessica Kingsley.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, M., Welch, V., and Gadda, A., 2017. Contested views of expertise in children’s care and permanence proceedings. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39, 42–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, S., et al., 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
• Kearney, B., 2000. Children’s Hearings and the Sheriff Court. Edinburgh: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Kilbrandon Report, 1964. Children and Young Persons Scotland: Report by the Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland Edinburgh: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, C., 2014. Adversarial and inquisitorial procedures with information acquisition. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 30, 767–803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, M., 2009. Law’s healing of children’s hearings: the paradox moves North. Journal of Social Policy, 24, 315–340.
   Google Scholar
• Kisthardt, M.K., 2006. Working in the best interest of children: facilitating the collaboration of lawyers and social workers in abuse and neglect cases. Rutgers Law Record, 30 (1), 1–77.
   Google Scholar
• Lindley, B., Richards, M., and Freeman, P., 2001. Advice and advocacy for parents in child protection cases - an exploration of conceptual and policy issues, ethical dilemmas and future direction. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 13 (3), 311–330.
   Google Scholar
• López, R., 2017. High quality legal representation for all parties in child welfare proceedings [online]. US Department of Health and Human Services: Administration on Children, Youth & Families. Available from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1702.pdf [Log No: ACYF-CB-IM-17-02:].
   Google Scholar
• Mansell, J., et al., 2011. Reframing child protection: A response to a constant crisis of confidence in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2076–2086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, J., 2012. ”I think I do have strategies”: lawyers’ approaches to parent engagement in care proceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 17, 202–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, J., Pearce, J., and Bader, K., 2011. Just following instructions? the representation of parents in care proceedings. Bristol: University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Mcghee, J., 2011. Children’s hearings in scotland: balancing rights and welfare. In: R. Davis and J. Gordon, eds. Social Work and the Law in Scotland. 2 ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan., 85–100.
   Google Scholar
• Mcghee, J. and Waterhouse, L., 2002. Family support and the Scottish children’s hearings system. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 273–283.
   Google Scholar
• Mcvie, S., 2011. Alternative models of youth justice: lessons from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Journal of Children’s Services, 6, 106–114.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B., Huberman, M., and Saldana, J., 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis. 3rd. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J.J., et al., 2017. Exploring the legal representation of individuals in foster care: what say youth and alumni? Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 142–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D.L., 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ney, T., Stoltz, J.A., and Maloney, M., 2013. Voice, power and discourse: experiences of participants in family group conferences in the context of child protection. Journal of Social Work, 13, 184–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrie, K., 2013. Children’s Hearings in Scotland. 3rd. Edinburgh: W. Green.
   Google Scholar
• O’Mahony, C., et al., 2016. Representation and participation in child care proceedings: what about the voice of the parents? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 38, 302–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, J., Masson, J., and Bader, K., 2011. Parents’ Representation Study. Bristol: University of Bristol School of Law.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, R., Welch, V., and Mitchell, F., 2016. The role of the solicitor in the children’s hearings system. Glasgow: CELCIS.
   Google Scholar
• Preston-Shoot, M., 2014. Making good decisions: law for social work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, M. and Cottrell, D., 2005. Health professionals in multi-disciplinary and multi-agency teams: changing professional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 547–560.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudes, D.S. and Portillo, S., 2012. Roles and power within federal problem solving courtroom workgroups. Law and Policy, 34, 402–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldana, J., 2013. The coding manual for qualitative research. Thousand Oak. CA: SAGE publications.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Legal Aid Board. 2013. Scope and availablity of legal aid extended for children’s hearings [online]. Scottish Legal Aid Board. Available from: [Accessed Access Date 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Legal Aid Board., 2014a. Code of practice in relation to children’s legal assistance cases [online]. Scottish Legal Aid Board. Available from: http://www.slab.org.uk/export/sites/default/common/documents/profession/practitioner_info_guides/ChildrensRegisterandDuty/Code_of_Practice_in_relation_to_Childrenxs_Legal_Assistance_February_2013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Legal Aid Board., 2014b. The Scottish legal aid board annual report 2013. Edinburgh: Scottish Legal Aid Board.
   Google Scholar
• SCRA., 2018. Statistical Analysis 2017/18. Edinburgh: Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Sevier, J., 2014. The truth-justice tradeoff: perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 212–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinden, A., 1999. Why won’t mom cooperate: A critique of informality in child welfare proceedings. Yale JL & Feminism, 11, 339.
   Google Scholar
• Slobogin, C., 2014. Lessons from inquisitorialism. Southern California Law Review, 87, 699–732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer, J.R., 2016. Adversarial vs inquisitorial systems: is there still such a difference? International Journal of Human Rights, 20, 601–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, F., 1995. Introduction. S. Asquith, ed. The kilbrandon report: reprint with foreword and introduction. Edinbrugh: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 2nd Reprint, ix–xiii.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, R., 2013. From “Adversarial v inquisitorial” to “Active, enabling, and investigative”: developments in UK administrative tribunals. In: L. Jacobs and S. Bagalay, eds. The nature of inquisitorial processes in administrative regimes: global perspectives. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 51–70.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, L., Mcarthur, M., and Camilleri, P., 2017. Is it ‘fair’? Representation of children, young people and parents in an adversarial court system. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 23–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein, J., 1997. And Never the Twain Shall Meet: the Best Interests of Children and the Adversary System. University of Miami Law Review. 52 (79), 79–175.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, R.L. and Georges, L., 2013. Social psychology and problem-solving courts: judicial roles and decision making. In: R. L. Wiener and E. M. Brank, Eds. Problem solving courts: social science and legal perspectives. New York: Springer, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Winick, B.J., 2014. Problem solving courts: therapeutic jurisprudence in practice. In: R. L. Weiner and E. M. Brank, Eds. Problem solving courts: social science and legal perspectives. New York: Springer, 211–236.
   Google Scholar