ABSTRACT
The appropriateness of adversarial hearings and the legal process for making decisions in child protection matters has been widely debated and the development of alternative dispute resolution schemes (discussed in the preceding chapter), is an important outcome of this debate. The difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems is, perhaps, the most significant difference in the legal framework of child protection systems in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Western Europe. Professionals, both legal and welfare, who operate within an adversarial context, look towards the inquisitorial system as offering more flexibility, as it functions more ‘on the basis of an inquiry rather than a contest’ (McGrath 1997:37). Certainly, the frustrations magistrates have reported, in this book, with child protection decision-making, are reflected in the above quote. Although magistrates emphasised the importance of due process, attention to individual rights and legislative obligation, they were hampered by their inability to get all the information they wanted about a case.
