• Carmel Matthias University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban


The Children’s Act 38 of 2005 contains provisions enabling utilisation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in cases involving children. This article focuses on the specialised training required to prepare social workers to be effective ADR practitioners. By drawing on comparative data, the article demonstrates that it is essential for social workers to receive such training in South Africa. The nature of the training that would be required to empower South African social workers to be effective ADR facilitators in care and protection cases is explored. Proposals for a South African training programme are put forward.

Author Biography

Carmel Matthias, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban
Prof Carmel R Matthias, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa


ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS. 2012. Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation. [Online] Available: Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation.pdf. [Accessed 4/2/2014].

AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION. 2012. Family violence: a national legal response (Report 114. Amended version of 19 July 2012). [Online] Available: [Accessed: 03/02/2014].

BAN, P. 2005. Aboriginal child placement principle and family group conferences. Australian Social Work, 58(4):384-394.

BARSKY, A. 2001. Understanding mediation from a social work perspective. Canadian Social Work Review, 18(1):25-46.

BONIFACE, A. 2012. A humanistic approach to divorce and family mediation in the South African context: a comparative study of Western-style mediation and African humanistic mediation. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 12(3):101-129.

BROWN, L. 2003. Mainstream or margin? The current use of family group conferences in child welfare practice in the UK. Child and Family Social Work, 8:331-340.

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 2014. Rule 5.518: Court-connected child protection/dependency mediation. [Online] Available: rules.cfm. [Accessed: 04/02/2014].

CHANDLER, S.M. & GIOVANNUCCI, M. 2004. Family Group Conferences: transforming traditional child welfare policy and practice. Family Court Review, 42(2):216-231.

CHILDREN’S COMMUNITY NETWORK, ONTARIO. 2014. Programs and Services: ADR-program description. [Online] Available: en/adr.html. [Accessed: 31/01/2014].

CUNNINGHAM, A. & VAN LEEUWEN, J. 2005. Discussion guide for communities implementing child protection mediation. London ON: Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System.

DE JONG, M. 2009. Child-focused mediation. In: BOEZAART, T. (ed) Child Law in South Africa. Claremont: Juta & Co.

EDWARDS, L. 2009. Child Protection Mediation: a 25-year perspective. Family Court Review, 47(1):69-80.

EVANS, C.A. 2011. The public law outline and family group conferences in childcare practice. Child Care in Practice, 17(1):3-15.

FAMILY LIFE CENTRE. 2014. Building relationships and preserving family life. [Online] Available: [Accessed: 10/03/2014].

FIRESTONE, G. & WEINSTEIN, J. 2004. In the best interests of children: a proposal to transform the adversarial system. Family Court Review, 42(2):203-215.

GALLINETTI, J. 2012. The children’s court. In: DAVEL, C.J. & SKELTON, A.M. (eds) Commentary on the Children’s Act. Claremont: Juta & Co.

GEORGE HULL CENTRE. 2014. Update on ADR Regulation and Family Group Conferencing. [Online] Available: ADR.doc. [Accessed: 06/02/2014].

GIOVANNUCCI, M. & LARGENT, K. 2009. A guide to effective child protection mediation: lessons from 25 years of practice. Family Court Review, 47(1):38-52.

HEHR, A.M. 2007. A child shall lead them: developing and utilizing child protection mediation to better serve the interests of the child. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 22(2):443-476.

HUNTSMAN, L. 2006. Family group conferencing in a child welfare context. NSW Department of Community Services. [Online] Available: [Accessed: 31/01/2014].

JORDAN, K. 2009. Need to be heard: increasing child participation in mediation through the implementation of model standards. Family Court Review, 47(4):715-736.

KITCHING, M. 2014. Executive Director of Child Welfare Durban and District. Personal communication on 1 April 2014.

LUBIN, J. 2009. Are we really looking out for the best interests of the child? Applying the New Zealand model of family group conferences to cases of child neglect in the United States. Family Court Review, 47(1):129-147.

MAYER, B. 2009. Reflections on the state of consensus-based decision making in child welfare. Family Court Review, 47(1):10-20.

NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR FAMILY MEDIATORS. 2011. National Standards for Family Mediation. [Online] Available: [Accessed: 10/03/2014].

OJELABI, L.A., FISHER, T., CLEAK, H., VERNON, A. & BALVIN, N. 2012. A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: findings about cultural appropriateness from the evaluation of a family relationship centre. Journal of Family Studies, 18(1):76-89.

OLSON, K.B. 2009. Family group conferencing and child protection mediation: essential tools for prioritizing family engagement in child welfare cases. Family Court Review, 47(1):53-68.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION FOR FAMILY MEDIATION 2014. The Ontario Child Protection Mediation Roster Program. [Online] Available: [Accessed: 12/03/2014.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. 2010. Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

SAVOURY, G.R., BEALS, H.L. & PARKS, J.M. 1995. Mediation in child protection: facilitating the resolution of disputes. Child Welfare, L IV(3):743-762.

SCHÄFER, L. 2011. Child Law in South Africa: domestic and International Perspectives. South Africa: LexisNexis.

SCHMID, J.E. 2008. The story of South African child welfare: a history of the present. Canada: Wilfred Laurier University. (PhD Thesis)

SHEEHAN, R. 2006. Alternative dispute resolution in child protection matters: the Victorian experience. Australian Social Work, 59(2):157-171.

WEIGENSBERG, E.C., BARTH, R.P. & GUO, S. 2009. Family group decision making: a propensity score analysis to evaluate child and family services at baseline and after 36-months. Children and Youth Services, 31:383-390.

ZAAL, N. 2010. Party status in children’s courts: a look at the implications for social workers. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 22(3):292-306.