Family Dispute Resolution Research Articles

Beyond Accommodation: Recognition of and Relationality with Vulnerable Parties in Family Mediation

While the concepts of recognition and relationality are sometimes articulated as competing perspectives, this paper argues both are important to meeting the needs of families and children from minority cultural and faith backgrounds in Australian family dispute resolution. It considers why and how recognition and relationality might be integrated into family dispute resolution processes to optimise the participation by, and self determination of, minority parents in making care arrangements for their children following separation through the process of family dispute resolution. This discussion is important because it locates arguments about how to develop culturally responsive family mediation practice within broader political and philosophical arguments, and highlights questions about the relevance of culture and faith to the resolution of post separation family disputes, and the ongoing challenges of making the family law system accessible and responsive to vulnerable minority families. Published in (2015) 29 Australian Journal of Family Law 203-234.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Historical acknowledgements of delays in the justice system often recognise the perspective of the accused or the disputant, and suggest that for a person seeking justice, the time taken for resolution of their issue is critical to the justice experience. In essence, these acknowledgements are consistent with more recent research which has shown that the time taken to deal with a dispute is a, and in many cases the, critical factor in determining whether or not people consider that the justice system is just and fair. This article considers issues in the justice system that are related to timeliness and the interconnectedness of the definition of delay and contends that the nature of delay in the current justice environment is contingent on many aspects and mechanisms utilised by the modern justice system. These elements include information technology (‘IT’) and electronic support, proactive intervention and management including case management systems as well as alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) for the resolution of civil, family and other disputes. The question of whether justice delayed is justice denied appears to depend on whether delay is inappropriate, out of proportion or avoidable. Proportionality and appropriateness of time taken to provide an outcome for disputants is said to form part of the definition of timeliness, as per the definition above.

A Third Revolution in Family Dispute Resolution: Accessible Legal Professionalism

Innovation in family law firms can tangibly improve access to justice in Canada. This article develops that claim by drawing on empirical data and scholarship about Canadian family law. Part 1 explains how and why legal needs arising from the dissolution of intimate relationships are so difficult for the parties to meet. This Part draws on civil legal needs surveys, surveys with lawyers, and data from interviews with litigants. The focus shifts to family law firms (including sole practitioners) in Part 2, using new empirical data about the Canadian lawyers who do this work. Three promising opportunities to innovate for accessibility in family law practice are identified: (i) innovative fee structure; (ii) innovative service variety; and (iii) innovative division of labour. A revolution in Canadian family law is proposed in Part 3. Our family law doctrine was revolutionized beginning in the 1960s, and family law alternative dispute resolution was similarly transfigured beginning in the 1980s. It is now time to foment a third revolution, in family law practice accessibility, to bring the benefits of family justice to all Canadians who need them.

Mediation for resolving family disputes

Nowadays the understanding of the institute of marriage and its importance in the society has changed. Marriage is no longer assumed to be a commitment for a lifetime. As the principle of equality has replaced hierarchy as the guiding principle of family law it gave more grounds for family disputes and it became socially acceptable to leave marriages that are intolerable or merely unfulfilling. The aim of this article is to suggest an alternative dispute resolution method-mediation as a worthy option for resolving family conflicts.

A Call for a Safe Model of Family Mediation

The Australian family law system has struggled for many years to provide processes and procedures that are less adversarial, and which ensure access to justice and fair outcomes for those needing to negotiate arrangements for their post-separation family lives. These challenges are exacerbated, and dealt with least well, in contexts where there is a history of domestic violence (‘DV’). Since 2011 and the launch of the Family Violence Bill by the then Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland, the Federal Government has often expressed its commitment to addressing family violence and ensuring post separation agreements are safe. However, a key and proven initiative, the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution model — a model that has the potential to offer a safe(r) family mediation environment in DV contexts — has not been made accessible to the Australian public. This comment argues that the Australian government has a social and ethical responsibility to introduce this model to the family law system.

Family Support Program Literature Review, Research into the Family Support Program: Family Law Services

The Australian Centre for Justice Innovation at Monash University has been selected to conduct a research project about Family Support Program family law services with the Allen Consulting Group for the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. It is expected that the project will be complete by April 2013.This Literature Review forms part of the initial phase of the project. The project also involves site visits, surveys/census, interviews with a wide range of family law system stakeholders, and data analysis.The project aims to inform the future development of more effective, integrated and accessible family law services which form part of the Family Support Program administered by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.The project looks at a range of family law services funded by the Attorney-General’s Department under the Family Support Program, including: Family Relationship Centres, Family Dispute Resolution services, Regional Family Dispute Resolution services, Counselling, Post Separation Co-operative Parenting services, Parenting Orders Program, Children’s Contact Services, Supporting Children after Separation Program, and Family Relationship Advice Line.

Family Conflict Management and Family Dispute Resolution on Marriage Breakdown and Divorce: Diverse Options

Family law is only one piece of the puzzle as separating and divorcing couples attempt to manage the conflict and deal with the practical problems arising on marriage breakdown. Divorce is a process, not an event. It is multi-faceted. The emotional dynamics of marriage breakdown may require a time consuming therapeutic response but parenting and economic arrangements must be resolved expeditiously. There is a tendency to assume that spouses who are locked in conflict will find themselves in court. In reality, fewer than four per cent of divorces proceed to trial. The costs of litigation are far too high, both financially and emotionally. Most disputes are resolved by negotiation, often with the assistance of lawyers. If negotiations are to bear fruit at a manageable cost to family members, hard bargaining that reflects "a winner take all" mentality must be avoided; principled negotiation, as espoused by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton in Getting To Yes, can generate optimal results for all interested parties, including the children. Recent years have witnessed the growth of mediation, whereby a neutral third party assists family members in searching for consensus on matters in dispute. The mediator controls the process but the family members control the substantive outcome of their deliberations. Mediation is nothing more than structured negotiation where a third party facilitates resolution of the dispute. If a final settlement cannot be reached, one possible option is recourse to private arbitration in which a third party is given the authority to determine the respective rights and obligations of the spouses and their children. It is possible to combine the aforementioned processes for the purpose of reaching a complete settlement of matters in dispute. These processes are complementary to the judicial process and should be closely examined by all families faced by the cataclysmic disruption generated by a failed marriage.

Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR): An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

Islam, the Shari'a and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mechanisms for legal redress in the Muslim community by Mohamed M Keshavjee

Mohamed M Keshavjee Islam, the Sharia and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mechanisms for legal redress in the Muslim community London: I.B. Tauris, 2013, 240 pp £56.50 (hardcover) ISBN 9781848857322Routinely cast as a body of sacred law by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the sharia surely ranks among the most seriously misunderstood religious concepts globally (jihad runs a close second). Fiqh, the jurisprudential corpus inspired by the sharia and constantly adapted by jurists across the diverse landscape of Muslim societies since the seventh century, is readily conflated with the sharia. For all its affinity with the Quran, the sharia itself is the result of an interpretive exercise by scholars where indigenous custom, the legacy of Roman law, and sheer pragmatism all find expression. Yet rather than serving as evidence of the rich heritage of Islam, this hybrid sharia has become for many the revered badge of an authentic identity-and a filter for political legitimacy and the rule of law.1These complexities are finely captured in the ethnographic study of family dispute resolution among British Muslims in the Hounslow area of London, which forms the basis of Mohamed Keshavjee's Islam, the Shari'a and Alternative Dispute Resolution. This community of some 20,000 has formed steadily since the 1950s, the vast majority arriving from rural Pakistan and adhering to the Sunni Hanafi school of fiqh. A more recent wave of Somali Muslims has added fresh texture to the milieu-alongside the coming of age of a locally born generation that makes up nearly a third of the community. Like any migrant experience, the early phase was about the mundane practicalities of settlement, with the emergence of institutionalized responses to matters of social and cultural identity. Only in 1998 did the community overcome the prejudice (and the legal hurdles) against its enjoyment of a full-fledged space of worship, the Jamia Mosque, also a hub of social interaction and schooling.A stable mosque environment also provided the sense of belonging and rootedness (48) to a community whose first generation mostly thought of the new country as a transient home; it was the culture, religion, and politics of the old country that were real. For the British-born generation, localization was the order of the day-and that applied to its brand of Islam as well.* 2 Keshavjee shows that when it comes to the interplay of British and South Asian ways in matters of private life, from halal foods to forced marriages and divorce, accommodation and change have increasingly prevailed over traditionalism. Hounslow is typical of the nation's Muslim community in manifesting gradual integration but not assimilation: the new generation greatly values the ethical parameters of the faith, while otherwise adapting to urban British mores (156-157).This grappling is especially evident when it comes to resolving conflicts through avenues short of formal, court-based justice, or what is today referred to as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The appeal of secular modes of ADR has grown exponentially amid the rising costs and widening time-spans of formal justice; religiously based ADR has a much longer history in all the major faith traditions, including Islam. For migrant Muslims in an overwhelmingly non-Muslim, minimally religious society, it is no surprise that effective ADR has a particularly robust attraction. In two of this book's strongest chapters, Keshavjee brings to bear his professional expertise in ADR in discussing the array of culturally responsive choices available to Hounslow's Muslims in resolving family conflicts-and the recourse to secular legal adjudication when all else fails. …

Family Law Reform in (Neoliberal) Context: British Columbia's New Family Law Act

This article introduces and critically examines the new British Columbia (Canada) Family Law Act (FLA), which lays out new norms and procedures for the resolution of family disputes and emphasizes out-of-court dispute resolution. These changes are also intended both to reflect and to construct the ‘new’ face of contemporary motherhood and fatherhood post-separation. After identifying the neoliberal context within which the changes will play out, we explain the law reform process and summarize the reforms pertaining to post-separation parenting. Key changes include: replacing the terms ‘custody’ and ‘access’ with an expanded definition of guardianship; a list of specific factors that must be considered in determining a child’s ‘best interests’; a detailed definition of domestic violence; explicit rules to guide relocation; and authority for courts to make conduct and non-compliance orders. The FLA distances itself from presumptions regarding the preferred form of parenting arrangements post-separation, but the post-separation default position is that each parent is the child’s guardian with all parental responsibilities. The last part of the article places the changes in their contemporary social and political context and critically evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. Our conclusion cautions that without adequate resources to support families and improved access to justice, the innovative aspects of the FLA may be thwarted.

Efficacy of family mediation and the role of family violence: study protocol

BackgroundFamily law reforms in Australia require separated parents in dispute to attempt mandatory family dispute resolution (FDR) in community-based family services before court attendance. However, there are concerns about such services when clients present with a history of high conflict and family violence. This study protocol describes a longitudinal study of couples presenting for family mediation services. The study aims to describe the profile of family mediation clients, including type of family violence, and determine the impact of violence profiles on FDR processes and outcomes, such as the type and durability of shared parenting arrangements and clients’ satisfaction with mediated agreements.MethodsA mixed method, naturalistic longitudinal design is used. The sampling frame is clients presenting at nine family mediation centres across metropolitan, outer suburban, and regional/rural sites in Victoria, Australia. Data are collected at pre-test, completion of mediation, and six months later. Self-administered surveys are administered at the three time points, and a telephone interview at the final post-test. The key study variable is family violence. Key outcome measures are changes in the type and level of acrimony and violent behaviours, the relationship between violence and mediated agreements, the durability of agreements over six months, and client satisfaction with mediation.DiscussionFamily violence is a major risk to the physical and mental health of women and children. This study will inform debates about the role of family violence and how to manage it in the family mediation context. It will also inform decision-making about mediation practices by better understanding how mediation impacts on parenting agreements, and the implications for children, especially in the context of family violence.

Cooperation of the social welfare center and the court in family court proceedings new Croatian Family Law framework

The jurisdiction and roles of the social welfare center in family court proceeding are analysed in the context of family law protection of chil- dren pursuant to the new Family Act of the Republic of Croatia from 2014 (hereinafter: FARC 2014). First, the role of the social welfare center as a party in family court proceedings is considered. Then, in the paper follows the analysis of the provisions of the FARC 2014 on the social welfare center as a (temporary) legal representative of the child and the body of assistance of the court. In analysing the role of the social welfare centre as a body of assistance of the court, the position of children in family court proceedings according the new Croatian Family Act is taken into account. In the separate, sixth part of the paper the methods are discussed of alternative dispute resolution of family matters (mandatory counselling and family mediation) according to the new FARC 2014, as well as the task of the social welfare center in their implementation. In the final part of the paper, the author indicates the summary of research results and some of the de lege ferenda projections on cooperation of the social welfare center and the court, as well as on jurisdiction and roles of the center in family court proceedings. These projections are aimed to pragmatically regulation of procedures in family matters involving children and, consequently, better substantial-procedural protection of the welfare of the child. Although the (new) third Family Act of the Republic of Croatia (2014) since its independence made significant changes in quality of the family law protection of children, the author's suggestion is that further steps should be made in the field of the organization of family justice. First, the provisions on the social welfare center as a (temporary) le gal representative of the child should be left. The representation of the child in family court proceedings in cases when there is a conflict of interest between him/her and his/her parents and when is necessary to ensure the representation of the child regardless of his/her parents should be fully provide through changes of the jurisdiction of the institution for representing children the Center for Special Guardianship which should develop in the special attorney for children. Secondly, we should think about changes of the jurisdiction in family matters in a way that only certain first instance courts in Croatia have this jurisdiction, as it is proposed for the courts at the seat of the county courts (family departments at first instance courts). In addition, the matters of adoption and guardianship should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the social welfare center in the jurisdiction of the court, whereby the procedure of preparing for the adoption will remain under the competence of the social welfare center (and other social welfare institutions and NGOs which are authorised to provide the program of professional training for adoptive parents). The service for judicial assistance to young people should be organised (and this service should be composed of social workers, social pedagogues, psychologists, therapists, lawyers, etc). To this service should be transferred most of the tasks of the social welfare center as a body of assistance of the court. Thirdly, the author welcomes the regulation on family mediation as an appropriate forum for the amicable resolution of family disputes. However, prescribing and strengthen family mediation (only) in the framework of the social welfare system, in other words, in the social welfare centers which employees should complete the postgraduate specialist study of family mediation is restrictive to the development of family mediation alone. The author suggests that is necessary to examine the conditions under which the family mediators may be registered in the Register of Family Mediators and provide family mediation, as well as which qualifications must have family mediators to provide family mediation in individual cases, taking into account the cases of property relations within the family. Fourthly, it is necessary to work on a systematic, interdisciplinary training of judges, special guardian/child representatives, employees of social welfare centers and family mediators, in particular on improving of professional knowledge and skills to communicate with children and enabling children to express their views.

Reforming Ontario's Family Justice System: An Evidence-Based Approach

Commissioned by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Ontario Chapter.This Report summarizes research about justice system responses to family disputes, makes recommendations for government action based on that empirical evidence, and identifies some as yet unanswered system design questions requiring further study. This document is provocative as it is premised on a realistic appreciation of the nature of family disputes and the limits of government action, especially in the present fiscal environment, and the fact that there are issues related to family justice that research has not adequately addressed and hence development of public policy must be undertaken in the face of uncertainty.There are interrelated challenges in addressing the problems in the family justice process, not only for governments, but also for the professionals who work in the justice system. There are issues related to laws, structures and policies that governments need to address, as well as issues of professional culture and practice that need to be addressed by legal educators, professional organizations and individual practitioners. There is, however, also a need for a realistic appreciation of what can be done to better resolve family disputes, both in terms of what any programs, policies or professionals can do to reduce the stress and suffering that is a common feature of these cases, and in terms of the resources that governments can and will commit to dealing with these issues given present fiscal realities.This Report focuses on measures that governments, in particular in Ontario, should be undertaking to improve access to family justice and the functioning of Ontario’s family justice system. The Report especially considers how empirical research informs how the government should respond to family relationship breakdown. Part 1 of the Report identifies the criteria by which the efficacy of separation-related interventions should be evaluated. It is argued that three processes are most clearly demonstrated to be effective in achieving these goals. These responses are then discussed in detail: enforced adjudication (Part 2); mediation (Part 3); and providing information to those involved in family disputes (Part 4). The Report considers each of these three responses, identifying evidence of their efficacy, alternative ways to provide them, ways to improve their delivery and their limitations. Knowing that these three things work leaves several important questions unanswered, and Part 5 identifies and discusses these challenging issues. These are questions for which, to this point, research has not adequately determined clear answers. Should services be delivered under a triage model, or through tiers? To what extent should the state seek to consolidate and simplify separation-related services? In what circumstances should users be required to pay for family justice services? Should adjudicative functions and settlement-seeking/relationship-building functions be kept in separated spheres, or brought together?

Centralising Children's Needs in Dispute Resolution in Family Violence Cases

Family separation is a unique and dynamic process for each family. Family violence is a serious problem affecting societies across the world. It is a common driver for family dissolution. Children exposed to family violence face a distinctive predicament in their own adjustment, recovery and future relationships with their parents. Family dispute resolution is an increasing early intervention approach for separated families in conflict over parenting. Family dispute resolution practitioners are the gatekeepers for facilitating or preventing exploration of information about the complex relational dynamics, including risk and protective factors in each individual case. To avoid gambling with the child's future, it is crucial to centralise the needs of each individual child. An intervention approach to potentially enhance outcomes for the child, and therefore longer term outcomes for community and society, is child inclusive practice. However, this is not without complexity and challenges in cases of family violence.

Developing Online Support and Counseling to Enhance Family Dispute Resolution in Australia

Participation in online support and counseling constitutes an essential but often overlooked second step in the Lodder–Zeleznikow (Harv Negot Law Rev 10:287–337, 2005, Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) model of online dispute resolution; dialogue techniques. This paper highlights the potential role that online support and counseling can play in avoiding extreme family conflict and potential hazardous litigation. The research centers on a case study organization, Relationships Australia Victoria, who provide counseling and support services and who are moving toward online service delivery. It analyzes this case and contrasts it with relevant international cases to identify key considerations and approaches for those developing, enhancing and evaluating online support and counseling sites in the future. The goal of this research is to assist Relationships Australia Victoria to construct online support and counseling services for isolated men, who have lost day-to day contact with their children and have diminished social networks, so that they might enhance the quality of life of both their children and themselves. The lessons learned in this research are relevant for the wider use of online support and counseling services by separating parents.

Child Protection in Family Relationship Centres: Innovations in Western Australia

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) established in Australia in 2006 are seeing parents from increasingly complex backgrounds including families where child protection matters may be of serious concern. These matters have required practitioners to shift their thinking about what responsibility they have for hearing the voices of children and their role in child protection. Many of the safety issues that present at FRC's fall below the statutory threshold for child protection intervention and this paper argues that FRC's are well placed to act as a referral and assessment point for families who might not otherwise be assessed or referred to services. This paper outlines a model of child inclusive practice (CIP) used in Anglicare WA's FRC's which is child inclusive but does not proceed to family dispute resolution. Where a risk factor such as family violence, mental health issues, or drug and alcohol issues is identified on intake with parents, children are routinely seen for an interview in order to obtain information about their needs and wellbeing. Literature indicates that many victims minimise violence and the risks associated with it; many parents maintain child contact with perpetrators for fear of retaliation; and many children protect their parents by not disclosing violence or other issues, because they do not want to “add fuel to the fire” or “be disloyal” to a parent. Case studies are provided to underline the importance of safety assessment. Keypoints for the Family Court Community High numbers of complex child protection matters that present at Family Law services Importance of undertaking a safety assessment with children as well as parents where indicated Importance of referral to support services even if cases do not reach child protection threshold

Evaluating the work of Australia's Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first 5 years

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) have been described as a centerpiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms. This paper places these centres in the larger context of the reforms and their commitment to providing community‐based family services in the family law area. The paper also examines the empirical evidence regarding FRCs' use and effectiveness. It notes that while the objectives and intentions of FRCs place considerable emphasis on strengthening family relationships and assisting families to stay together, the centres themselves have only a modest level of direct involvement with intact families. FRCs tend to have strong links with other community‐based family services, many of whom are more engaged with intact families; but it is difficult to gauge their effectiveness in this area. Most FRCs' direct services are aimed at separating families and most of that work involves family dispute resolution (family mediation) and associated services such as screening and assessment and the provision of relevant information. A substantial majority of clients who attend FDR at an FRC reach agreement about their parenting arrangements either at FDR or subsequent to attending FDR. These agreements also tend to hold up in the medium term. A majority of parents believe that at FDR, the child(ren)'s needs were taken into account; the parenting agreement worked for the child(ren); and the parenting agreement worked for them. A substantial proportion of FRC clients come from families that have experienced family violence or other dysfunctional behaviours, and such behaviours reduce the chances of resolving parenting disputes. The paper concludes by suggesting that having been created mainly as a default alternative to legal interventions and court processes, it is likely that a major future strength of FRCs will lie in their emerging capacity to work constructively not only with other relationship services and networks, but with family lawyers and the courts.

DIVORCE REFORM AND FAMILY MEDIATION IN ENGLAND: AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1996

The article focuses on the divorce reform in England. In 1996, the Family Law Act was passed by the Parliament in England, which is cited as the Family Law Act, 1996. Unfortunately, after it was passed, there were problems concerning its enforcement and the Government decided to postpone the enforcement of some parts of the Act. Generally, the suspension involves the law concerning the ground of divorce and mediation. Although the overall position of the Act remains uncertain, it is significant to examine it because of its strength in upholding the institution of the family. Under the Act, mediation is introduced as it has many advantages such as resolving disputes amicably and it can reduce backlog of cases in the court. It is hoped that the discussion in this article will benefit Malaysia and hopefully we may learn something from the divorce reform that took place in England. In Malaysia, the current Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 has been enacted since 1976. Perhaps, we may introduce new family legislation governing non-Muslims and include mediation as an alternative means of resolving family disputes.

Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT

Parental separation can be psychologically distressing for families—particularly when conflict between parents is high. In Australia, reforms to Family Law legislation have introduced mandatory mediation, which has increased the need for community-based family dispute resolution (FDR) services. Providers have responded to these needs with innovative solutions, including online computer-assisted mediation technologies. We evaluated the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) within the context of an Australian online family dispute resolution (OFDR) system. The model was extended to include trust and personal web innovativeness, which we proposed would be implicated in the intentions of staff to use a family mediation service. A cross-sectional web-survey methodology was employed to collect data from 127 staff in the implementation organization. The measurement and structural models were evaluated with partial least squares (PLS) modeling and the results provided some support for our hypotheses. Specifically, the core UTAUT model was partially validated in this context. Moreover, effort expectancy mediated the effects of trust in technology on behavioral intention. Contrary to expectations, trust in the organization and innovativeness did not produce significant effects on intention. Practically, these results suggest that pre-contemplation technology acceptance research can have utility for change management and system design.

A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: Findings about cultural appropriateness from the evaluation of a family relationship centre

The cultural appropriateness of human service processes is a major factor in determining the effectiveness of their delivery. Sensitivity to issues of culture is particularly critical in dealing with family disputes, which are generally highly emotive and require difficult decisions to be made regarding children, material assets and ongoing relationships. In this article we draw on findings from an evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre at Broadmeadows (FRCB) to offer some insights into and suggestions about managing cultural matters in the current practice of family dispute resolution (FDR) in Australia. The brief for the original research was to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of FDR services offered to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities living within the FRCB’s catchment area, specifically members of the Lebanese, Turkish and Iraqi communities. The conclusions of the evaluations were substantially positive. The work of the Centre was found to illustrate many aspects of best practice but also raised questions worthy of future exploration. The current article reports on overall cultural appropriateness, particularly identifying barriers which may inhibit access and how acculturation may play a role in reducing perception of barriers. An earlier article reported on access, retention and outcomes for these CALD groups (Akin Ojelabi et al., 2011).