ABSTRACT
Magistrates, as qualified lawyers, described their decision-making approaches in legal terms and were highly individualised and case-specific in these descriptions. How magistrates weighted case factors, and information in child protection matters, appeared to involve four reference points. Magistrates said they looked first and foremost to legal factors to decide child protection matters. They examined the grounds of the allegations to ensure they complied with legislative requirements, the evidence to support these, the merit of the case, and the attitudes and demeanour of the parties. The best interests of the child were therefore established in a ‘judicial manner’ (M 11):
Second, magistrates referred to the individual decision frameworks they developed to measure harm and risk to a child. Magistrates said they needed to be personally satisfied that ‘what is alleged has happened’ (M 03). Magistrates did not talk in terms of a specific framework but rather in terms of the issues they looked for in a case to guide their considerations; issues such as parental competence and motivation to change. The nature of the child abuse allegations would also direct magistrate thinking about what needed to change in a family in order for a child’s situation to improve:
The third reference point magistrates used to assess the merit of child protection concerns was their personal frameworks and their personal family experiences, particularly in the absence of clear measures and legal certainty. Their views about their role in the jurisdiction, their beliefs about families, and about intervention in families, were important elements of this framework. Magistrates believed firmly in the importance of family life for children and that every endeavour must be made to maintain children in their family:
Magistrates’ less than positive views about the expertise of child protection workers and the merit of their intervention were also part of this framework. Magistrates were concerned by the extent to which state intervention was required in families to address child protection concerns. Some magistrates expressed concern about too hasty intervention despite the legislative aim of minimum intervention. They were concerned also by what they perceived as uncertainty and ambiguity about claims made by child protection. Craft, Epley and Clarkson (1980) found in their study of child protection decisions that the individual biases of the worker were a more important influence on decisions than the characteristics of the case. It was apparent in the current study that individual magistrate’s views were influential although the case characteristics did modify a magistrate’s response.
