Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12302 Record ID: 485a939e-23fb-457a-974d-f2ec1f6001ac
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Field, Rachael | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T22:59:01Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T22:59:01Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2006 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0817-623X | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12302 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Butterworths | en |
| dc.subject | Informal responses | en |
| dc.subject | Impact on children and young people | en |
| dc.subject | Family law | en |
| dc.subject | Legislation analysis | en |
| dc.title | Using the feminist critique of mediation to explore ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’ implications for women of the introduction of mandatory family dispute resolution in Australia’ | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Australian journal of family law | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 986 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | National | en |
| dc.description.notes | This article considers issues for women as a result of the 2006 Australian Family Law amendments which included the introduction of mandatory mediation. It looks at the ambiguity of the feminist critique of mediation which sees the process itself as empowering and positive for women (the good), but as a process in which women are potentially vulnerable (the bad), and as a process also in which women who are victims of violence, are disadvantaged (the ugly). These 3 aspects of the feminist critique are used to analyse issues for women in Australia as a result of mandatory family dispute resolution in parenting disputes. It argues that family dispute resolution can be a positive process for women but it can also be an environment in which women face disadvantages. It suggests that these potential disadvantages mean that mandating family dispute resolution as a first resort, could create post-separation injustice for women, and also for children. It discusses how mandating family dispute resolution reflects a critical misunderstanding from family law policy makers of key aspects of consensus based informal dispute resolution and also critical misunderstandings of the reality of post-separation for women. Concerns of privacy, regulation and training are also raised. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Australian journal of family law | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2007-01-24 | en |
| dc.publisher.place | Chatswood, NSW | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.