United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

The Family Court of Australia is a specialist court dealing with complex family law matters. The Court was created by the Family Law Act 1975.

The Court determines cases with complex law, facts and parties; covers specialised areas such as applications pursuant to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, special medical procedures and international relocation; and provides national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.

By the late 1990s child abuse cases had become part of the core business of the Court. Research conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission (Footnote 1), the Court’s Review of Pending Cases (Footnote 2) and the Family Violence and Family Court Research Program (Footnote 3) all raised issues about child abuse allegations in the context of parental separation and divorce. All reports pointed to a major change in the issues presented for resolution to the Court and showed that the Court was now a forum for the resolution of family violence.

Several elements of the Court’s case management system were working against the best interests of the child in matters where allegations of child abuse were raised. Cases were taking too long and the process was not child-focussed. The Court was also dealing with multi-problem families, where unemployment, substance abuse, criminal convictions, family violence or other problems existed which required a specialised and child-focused intervention to understand and respond to these issues. The need for a more effective way to handle these cases – and to minimise the risk to children – was increasingly recognised.

In 1997, the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD, the then Chief Justice of the Family Court, established a committee to develop ways to better manage disputes where child abuse allegations were involved. This committee designed the pilot program that was introduced in Melbourne in June 1998. The pilot, named Magellan, involved 100 selected cases with allegations of sexual or serious physical abuse drawn from the Melbourne and Dandenong Registries.

In 2001, Thea Brown (Footnote 4) evaluated the pilot program, after which it was agreed to commence the national implementation of the project throughout the Court. The importance of Magellan is that it is an integrated case-management system that works to reduce trauma for children and that keenly focuses the evidence-gathering and trial processes on ensuring the best outcomes for children who may have been abused or may be at risk of abuse.

(1) Seen and Heard: Priority for Children in the Legal Process (1997) Report No. 4, Commonwealth of Australia, ACT.

(2) Family Court of Australia, 1997.

(3) Brown T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., Sheehan, R. (1998). Violence in Families: Report Number One, The Management of Child Abuse Allegations in Custody and Access Disputes Before the Family Court of Australia, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria.

(4)Evaluation conducted by The Family Violence and Family Court Research Program. Brown, T., Sheehan, R., Frederico, M., & Hewitt, L., (2001) “Resolving Family Violence to Children: The Evaluation of Project Magellan, a Pilot Project for Managing Family Court Residence and Contact Disputes when Allegations of Child Abuse Have Been Made”. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The pilot of Magellan commenced in June 1998 and ran until December 2000, using 100 cases from the Melbourne and Dandenong Registries in Victoria (Brown, Sheehan, Frederico, & Hewitt, 2001). The evaluation of the pilot reported that: · The number of hearings such disputes had taken in the immediate past reduced by almost 50%, from an average of five court events to three. · The time taken reduced by almost 50%, from an average of 17.5 months to 8.69. · Cases proceeding to the lengths of a judicial determination were reduced from 30% to 13%, thereby increasing consent orders accordingly. · The breakdown rate of final orders was reduced considerably from 37% to 5%. · The numbers of highly distressed children reduced from 28% to 4%. While this was associated with the introduction of the program, factors additional to the pilot program may have contributed to this change. One of the advantages in the way these disputes were managed was the reduction in the cost of these cases. Clearly, costs to the Court were saved by the reduction in Court events, the reduction in those disputes proceeding as far as a judicial determination and the reduction in the breakdown of final orders. These savings were achieved by directing Court resources to new tasks undertaken in new sequences, particularly by investing resources in the very early stages of the disputes rather than towards the end. Participants in Magellan, most particularly the many professionals and parents in the pilot program, were extremely satisfied with it. The major recommendation for change, urged by the professionals and the parents, was for more supportive services to the families once the dispute had been settled so as to maintain the agreements and resolution reached through the pilot program. Magellan had achieved its outcomes by using less resources in an innovative, collaborative, inter-organisational program based on new principles and procedures – and it was rolled-out across the Family Court in 2003. In August 2006, after three years in operation, a review of the Magellan system was arranged by the National Magellan Stakeholder Committee. The aim of the review was to evaluate Magellan against its intended goal of being an effective mechanism for responding to such allegations. This was addressed through two types of data collection: Quantitative data: Case-file review: A case-file review and comparison of 80 cases managed using the Magellan protocols and 80 comparable cases. Qualitative data: Interviews and focus groups: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with key stakeholders to examine how Magellan is being implemented and to evaluate perceptions of its effectiveness across five registries. The review, conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that Magellan has achieved its objectives and is well received by clients and court staff.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
A significant proportion of the work undertaken by the Family Court throughout Australia relates to parenting disputes in which serious child abuse allegations (both sexual and physical) have been made. In 1997, the then Chief Justice of the Family Court, The Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD, established a committee led by The Honourable Justice Linda Dessau, to develop a new way for the Court to manage these cases. This was done to address the concerns the Court had about the number of cases involving allegations of child abuse and the capacity of its case-management procedures to effectively and efficiently respond to these concerns. The pilot Magellan project commenced in 1998. The Magellan case-management processes are overseen by the Magellan Team, which consists of the Magellan Judge(s), Judicial Associate(s), Magellan Registrar, the Manager of the Child Dispute Services (which provides Court clients with the services of a mediator, now known as a Family Consultant) and a Client Services Officer (Case Coordinator). Under the direction of the Magellan Judge(s), the team handles the case from start to finish, with significant resources directed to the case in the early stages, with an aim of resolving the case within six months. Magellan has the following main features: · The use of a judge-led, tightly managed approach – a multi-disciplinary team of Judges, Registrars and Family Consultants handle the cases from start to finish. · A time limited approach – most cases proceed through the Family Court within a target six-month timeline. · The use of a court-ordered Independent Children’s Lawyer in every case, funded by legal aid with no funding cap. The legal aid cap is lifted for parents who otherwise qualify for legal aid. · An early and detailed family report is prepared by a Family Consultant or external expert in all appropriate cases, analysing the family dynamics and the needs of the children. · The use of court-ordered expert investigations and assessments from State/Territory child protection authorities. Based on the successful pilot project, Magellan has been rolled-out across the Family Court of Australia’s registries since 2003. The National Magellan Stakeholder Committee was established in 2002. This committee was responsible for commissioning the latest research, and acted as a steering group throughout the evaluation. The Committee is chaired by a Family Court Judge, The Honourable Justice Rodney Burr AM, and contains representatives from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, the Community Services Ministers’ Advisory Council, National Legal Aid and representatives from the Family Court of Australia. In August 2006, the Committee called for expressions of interest, and in September, commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to further evaluate Magellan Case Management.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The main objective of Magellan was to ensure that the cases which are the most resource intensive and involve the most vulnerable children are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible. To achieve this objective, the following elements were considered essential in establishing an effective Magellan model: 1. Cooperation Cooperation is needed between all the agencies involved with families: courts, police, legal aid, private lawyers, the statutory child protection department, hospitals, private psychologists, community health centres or other counselling agencies. Establishing the Magellan committee in each jurisdiction was essential for communication between agencies. This also allows the Judge to benefit from a multi-disciplinary perspective. 2. Court timeliness and prioritisation Cooperation enables all the necessary information to be gathered to ensure cases can be processed through the Court more quickly. The aim is to complete cases within six months. 3. Early report from the statutory child protection department In order to achieve good timelines, timely responses are needed from the state agencies, particularly the statutory child protection department about their involvement and current concerns about the child. 4. Good individual case management To achieve this, cases have to be both managed and heard by only one or two judges per family. Judges need to get to know the families and their circumstances and provide a sense of continuity between Court events. 5. A dedicated Registrar The Magellan Registrar is familiar with the details of the case, ensures that everything is coordinated and that ‘nothing falls between the cracks’. 6. Un-capped legal aid funding for families Families who are entitled to legal aid are able to get it, without the imposition of caps. 7. Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) Having the interests of children who are the subject of the proceedings independently represented is crucial to the process. ICLs help to gather information early and foster discussions. This includes having funding for an early Family Report if the Court’s internal Family Consultants are not used. 8. Children’s best interests By addressing timeliness and quality of the reports, the Court is able to come to a speedier resolution in the best interest of the child—particularly when the allegations are not supported and the child can resume spending time with the parent. Key events The key events and indicative timelines for each stage in the Magellan pathway are illustrated below in Figure 1.1 (Note: Please see emailed copy as we are unable to electronically submit the table). As well as showing the sequence of Court events, the timeline identifies the interactions that occur with each of the key agencies external to the Court. This includes appointment of an ICL; notification of the allegation to the statutory child protection department and request for a Magellan Report from them about their investigations and their current concerns; ordering the Family Report, as well as other reports from experts. It also highlights that cases should be finalised within 6 months.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
A Magellan Team was established in each Registry. The team comprises a Magellan Judge(s), a Judicial Associate(s), a Magellan Registrar, the Manager Child Dispute Services and a Client Services Officer. A Magellan Stakeholder Committee, chaired by the Magellan Judge was also set up in each registry, comprising representatives from the Magellan Team, State/Territory Legal Aid, child protection authority, police and the private legal profession. Each Committee meets half-yearly or as required in order to maintain these essential relationships. In dealing with Magellan matters, the time standards below apply to the further listing of the case. 1. The Notice of Child Abuse and Family Violence form is to be considered as soon as practicable but within 7 days. 2. After consideration of the form by the Magellan Registrar, the matter is to be listed as soon as practicable, but within 14 days. 3. If a date is allocated for a second return date, it should be no more than 6 weeks from the date of the first return date. 4. If a report/letter is requested by State/Territory child protection authority, it should be made available to the parties immediately upon being received by the Court but no later than 4 weeks after the date of the order and 2 weeks prior to the second procedural hearing. 5. If an order is made for an expert report it should be prepared and released to the parties no more than 8 weeks from the date of the order. 6. The trial notice should issue no later than the third procedural hearing. 7. If a date is allocated for a Pre-Trial Conference, it should be no more than 5 weeks from the issuing of the trial notice. 8. If a date is allocated for a Trial, it should be no more than 2 weeks from the Pre-Trial Conference. 9. The overall time line is 26 weeks. In every application for an order under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 in which a Notice of Child Abuse and Family Violence form is filed, or where otherwise allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child are brought to the attention of the Court, the Court must as soon as practicable: · make directions for the filing of a Notice of Child Abuse and Family Violence form if not filed · appoint an ICL · consider if any procedural or interim orders should be made to protect the child or any of the parties to the proceeding · enable appropriate evidence to be obtained about the allegation as expeditiously as possible · consider whether orders should be made under s 69ZW or otherwise to obtain reports from State/Territory agencies in relation to the allegations · consider whether orders should be made or an injunction granted under s 68B · make a s 91(B) order requesting the intervention of an officer of the relevant State/Territory child protection authority · make orders as the Court considers appropriate · deal with the issues raised by the allegation as expeditiously as possible.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
Although participants thought that Magellan was excellent and achieved its aims, several obstacles were observed. These were largely in relation to interpretation of the definition of cases to be streamed into Magellan, on some occasions it appeared that cases outside the Magellan criteria had been included in the project because although they were not Magellan they were complex and intractable and it was perceived that the case management process used in Magellan would help to achieve a resolution. Other obstacles included stakeholder concerns about possible impacts on already stretched resources. These obstacles were overcome by improved communication, which also lead to a better understanding amongst stakeholders of each other's business, responsibilities and resources, and improved relationships. Despite some implementation difficulties, Magellan was seen as a significant improvement over the previous case-management procedure and the best way of identifying issues and resolving matters in children’s best interests, given the consequences of the outcomes and the available resources. One of the difficulties in extending the pilot program nationally was the differences between the registries, including the different state/territory contexts. Implementation issues were raised about the lack of fidelity to the original model, the importance of the Magellan Report from the child welfare department and the need for high quality, timely reports (and oral evidence) from experts. Development of Magellan protocols, as well as the formation of the stakeholder steering committees have resulted in improvements in those relationships and in the understanding of the role of each agency. The use of a docket system (the practice of assigning a Magellan case to a designated Judge for case management and/or determination) was not consistent across registries. Through the coordinated effort of the Magellan Judges in the Family Court, considerable effort was made to streamline practices. The Judges emphasised the gruelling nature of the work. This is consistent with research on the impact on other professionals in the field of human services who deal with cases of child abuse or adult violence (see Stevens & Higgins, 2002; Morrison, 2007). The need for greater understanding of the stress on judicial staff, as well as other stakeholders involved in Magellan cases—and their potential for vicarious traumatisation—was raised. There were a few isolated examples of poor communication that could be improved. These were dealt with at the registry level through the Magellan Stakeholder Committee meetings. These meetings were seen as critical to the success of Magellan by providing the opportunity for issues and obstacles to be raised and addressed immediately.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The resources involved in the development, pilot, implementation and evaluation of Magellan were extensive. But Magellan was unique in that its importance meant that existing resources were used in order to implement the project sooner. This meant there was limited additional financial outlay for a project that required such organisational change. There was scepticism expressed at the beginning about sustaining the level of cooperation and resource allocation that was required, however Magellan has since been implemented across the Court and an evaluation conducted to assess its effectiveness. The evaluation showed that despite the work required by the Court and by State/ Territory departments, there is considerable support, cooperation and determination to continue Magellan into the future. Participants thought that Magellan was excellent and that to the degree that it was implemented and resourced (particularly with appropriate judicial time, while avoiding the risk of overburdening judges) was achieving its aims. The critical issue was having the resources up front and early in the process. State and Territory statutory child protection departments also put in resources early, by agreeing to produce their special report to the Court. All of this ‘front-end’ resourcing was based on recognition that unless each of the agencies did this, these cases were the ones that would keep causing difficulties. Timing is intrinsically linked to the issue of up-front resourcing. All stakeholders put more money, time and effort early into these cases. The Family Court similarly put resources up front: Judges’ time to case manage, as well as conduct interim and final hearings, the provision of Registrars, Family Consultants and other Court staff; as well as prioritisation of cases with special mention days, or a ‘blitz’ if back-logs appear on the Magellan list. But it was not only the amount of resources used, but the quality of them. In Magellan, all of the parties were well represented. The Independent Children’s Lawyers, who specialise in the area, were of the highest quality and the expert evidence provided by experienced, forensic psychiatrists was also of a very high standard. The technical resources required were also vital. Because of the new case management approach, practice directions had to be redrafted, the legal profession had to be re-educated and internal Court systems needed updating. An examination of the cost-effectiveness of Magellan was not part of the current project brief, but is likely to be conducted in the future. The table below (Note: please see emailed copy as we are unable to electronically submit the table)demonstrates the complexity of resources needed for this project. The intrinsic nature of all organisations working in the family law arena and their commitment to clients and each other is the key to mobilizing, engaging and sustaining all players.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
‘Like the eponymous Portuguese-born explorer whose voyage became known as the first successful attempt at world circumnavigation, Magellan is about charting new waters and exploring new territory to provide better outcomes for vulnerable children and families.’ (Footnote 5) Magellan was an attempt to recognise the complex nature of Court processes, especially when they involve serious allegations of sexual or physical abuse of children. Magellan – and in particular the results of the latest evaluation report – demonstrate how collaboration, cooperation and communication can have a positive effect on Court processes. The Court’s function has evolved as a result of reforms to the Family Law system that commenced on 1 July 2006. The establishment of the Family Relationship Centres from that date, in combination with the Federal Magistrates Court’s capacity to manage less complex family law cases, enables the Family Court of Australia to focus its resources on the determination of the most complex family law disputes. When serious allegations of sexual abuse or physical abuse of children are raised in parenting matters, the Magellan case-management system is a significant improvement to the Family Court’s previous procedures for handling these matters. There are areas for improvement and opportunities to ensure adequate resources in terms of finance, personnel and corporate history for its sustainability. However, the results of the latest evaluation support the findings of the pilot study, which also showed Magellan’s success, particularly in reducing the length of matters and the number of Court events, as well as satisfaction of the professional stakeholders involved and the families caught up in the process. In order for Magellan to continue to operate as it was originally envisaged, the following key elements are necessary: · Provide training for individuals who are new to the process—whether that is Court personnel, or staff from the various agencies and key stakeholder groups on whom the process relies (i.e., police, child protection staff, Independent Children’s Lawyers, legal aid, Family Consultants, etc. · Maintain knowledge about the roles, interactions and points of contact between agencies—and the goodwill that builds up between participants in the stakeholder committees—is also important, particularly when personnel in the intersecting agencies change. · Regular ongoing meetings of the Magellan Stakeholder Committee. · Magellan needs to be understood within the broader socio-legal framework that connects child protection with family law dispute resolution. At the individual level, a lack of understanding of how the Family Court interacts with police, child protection departments, juvenile courts and criminal courts sees Magellan often subject to unrealistic expectations by parties. · Presentations at local and international conferences and presentations at the local level to individual departments in the States and Territories. · Regular communication with other courts (state and federal) throughout Australia to celebrate our successes and share learnings. (5) Dr Daryl J Higgins, Australian Institute of Family Studies, An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan case-management model, 2007.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
Magellan is an internationally unique project. It sits among a complex set of expectations, at the intersection of a range of agencies and systems involved in responding to serious allegations of sexual abuse or physical abuse of children in private family law matters. The complexity of this intersection created the need for the Magellan Project to provide a coordinated approach to bring the information from each of these areas together to ensure that private family law disputes are resolved in a way that provides for the best interests of children. The Magellan case management pathway and interagency protocols make considerable progress in addressing the problems identified by Moloney et al.’s (2007) analysis of family law cases commencing in 2003. They showed that at that time, decision making occurred in the context of a lack of evidence. Magellan also provides answers to problems identified by the Family Law Council’s (2002) report on family law and child protection, such as not all cases being investigated by state authorities, and the lack of information conveyed to the Family Court. The role that State/Territory child protection departments play—along with other investigatory agencies such as police and forensic medical units—in providing information to the Court as part of the Magellan protocols is critical to the success of Magellan, and ensuring the safety of children and that their bests interests are served in family law proceedings. Consistent with the findings from the original pilot study in Victoria (Brown, Sheehan et al., 2001), the results show that the Magellan case-management model is a unique system for responding to the most complex of family law parenting matters. The key themes that are attributed to the success of Magellan include: · matters are finalised more quickly than before · there is better coordination and consistency of approach through judge-management (but with a concomitant higher burden and risk of burnout for judges) · relevant information is available in a timely manner (particularly the focused “Magellan Report” from the statutory child protection department) · there is better coordination, involvement and cooperation of all stakeholders · there are clear timeline goals and separate court listings. Despite some difficulties in implementation, Magellan is seen both as a significant improvement over the Court’s usual case-management procedures, and a significantly better way of identifying the issues and resolving matters in children’s best interests, given the consequences of the outcomes and the resources that are available.


Institution Name:		Family Court of Australia
Institution Type:		Other
Contact Person:		Leisha Lister
Title:		Executive Advisor to CEO Family Court of Australia
Telephone/ Fax:		(02) 6243 8696 Mobile 0408 633 380
Institution's / Project's Website:		(02) 6243 8737
E-mail:		leisha.lister@familycourt.gov.au
Address:		GPO Box 9991
Postal Code:		2601
City:		Canberra
State/Province:		Australian Capital Territory
Country:		Australia

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information