Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - March 6, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8100
Date: 2009-03-20

Author:Diane Miller

Subject:Re: collaboration be adversaries

One organization that is trying to take a collaborative approach to legal disputes is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. I am most familiar with their divorce work where each parent has a collaborative law attorney, but the process is a series of meetings that cannot involve court. The idea is to avoid the "tearing down process" resultant from the court adversarial process. With the interest of children in mind, child behavioral specialists and psychotherapists may also become involved. Here is the website for more information: http://www.collaborativepractice.com/ Diane -- Diane Wach Miller, M.S.Ed., LPC Support and Acquisitions Specialist National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Cornell University dianemiller@cornell.edu 607.255.2543 www.ndacan.cornell.edu On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Sheri McMahon > wrote: State policy in child welfare makes much of the notion that solutions are found by means of collaboration between family and the agency and invokes the concept, widely stated (at least) in, say, systems involving children with special health care needs, special education, and so on that "parents are experts." Yet parallel to casework are the legal proceedings--deprivation adjudications, custody petitions, and so on. I'm sure different prosecutors (which, when you come down to it, is what they are) take different approaches to their work, but what certainly can happen is that as long as parents exercise their right to have their case heard in court they are subject to a difficult tearing-down process, in which the very person who most represents the agency in casework is also the person whose information is used as the weaponry (possibly with considerable sharpening efforts by the prosecutor). Any comments, study, papers, or anything else on this topic and how it impacts the concept of collaboration? Government publications do tend to focus on the fact that whatever the court outcome or other clear legal requirements for parents happens to be, those must be taken seriously--but shy away from the issue of how destructive that process can be, and what agencies can do to lessen the destructive impact. I was involved in a case in which the agency made the wise decision, after the parent prevailed in a TPR proceeding, to change caseworkers so the reunification ordered by the court could proceed without resentment. Sheri McMahon -- Diane Wach Miller, M.S.Ed. Support and Acquisitions Specialist National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Cornell University dianemiller@cornell.edu 607.255.2543 www.ndacan.cornell.edu

One organization that is trying to take a collaborative approach to legal disputes is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. I am most familiar with their divorce work where each parent has a collaborative law attorney, but the process is a series of meetings that cannot involve court. The idea is to avoid the "tearing down process" resultant from the court adversarial process. With the interest of children in mind, child behavioral specialists and psychotherapists may also become involved. Here is the website for more information: http://www.collaborativepractice.com/ Diane -- Diane Wach Miller, M.S.Ed., LPC Support and Acquisitions Specialist National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Cornell University dianemillercornell.edu 607.255.2543 www.ndacan.cornell.edu On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Sheri McMahon > wrote: State policy in child welfare makes much of the notion that solutions are found by means of collaboration between family and the agency and invokes the concept, widely stated (at least) in, say, systems involving children with special health care needs, special education, and so on that "parents are experts." Yet parallel to casework are the legal proceedings--deprivation adjudications, custody petitions, and so on. I'm sure different prosecutors (which, when you come down to it, is what they are) take different approaches to their work, but what certainly can happen is that as long as parents exercise their right to have their case heard in court they are subject to a difficult tearing-down process, in which the very person who most represents the agency in casework is also the person whose information is used as the weaponry (possibly with considerable sharpening efforts by the prosecutor). Any comments, study, papers, or anything else on this topic and how it impacts the concept of collaboration? Government publications do tend to focus on the fact that whatever the court outcome or other clear legal requirements for parents happens to be, those must be taken seriously--but shy away from the issue of how destructive that process can be, and what agencies can do to lessen the destructive impact. I was involved in a case in which the agency made the wise decision, after the parent prevailed in a TPR proceeding, to change caseworkers so the reunification ordered by the court could proceed without resentment. Sheri McMahon -- Diane Wach Miller, M.S.Ed. Support and Acquisitions Specialist National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Cornell University dianemillercornell.edu 607.255.2543 www.ndacan.cornell.edu