were performed in and relevant information was not shared between agencies. ‘silos’ None of the services shared its risk assessment with any other service. In response to his concern about the implications of this for safety, Judge Gray Luke’s recommended the Victorian government legislative or policy impediments to the ‘identify sharing of relevant information, and remove such so that all relevant agencies impediments’, able to share relevant information in relation to a person at risk of family The ‘are violence’. report of the Royal Commission into Family Violence also notes that the sharing of risk assessment information has the potential to increase victim safety, improve case management and coordination, reduce the need for victims to re-tell their stories, and increase the accountability of perpetrators. The Royal Commission has recommended the enactment of dedicated family violence information sharing legislation in Victoria (discussed in Chapter 4). Reflecting similar concerns, two submissions to reference proposed that family Council’s dispute resolution services should be able to share their screening assessments with the courts where they have safety concerns for a child or parent. However, in keeping with the view espoused by many stakeholders that there should be no change to the current provisions regarding confidentiality and inadmissibility of disclosures, there was also some strong opposition to this proposal. For example, the submission from the FRSA noted in relation to its survey of members that: all respondents were of the view that particular aspects of counselling and FDR … should remain confidential (ie intake assessment, case file notes). VLA also opposed any proposal to remove the confidentiality protections from intake processes, noting that the assessment interview, a party will often seek assurances that the ‘during information collected is protected by VLA expressed particular confidentiality’. concern that any incursions into the confidentiality of intake assessments could ‘result in parties failing to raise safety during the screening process. Council also concerns’ notes that the joint submission from the Court of Victoria and the Magistrates’ Children's Court of Victoria proposed that risk assessments conducted by support agencies should not be shared without client consent. A number of submissions noted that it remains unclear whether intake assessments conducted by family dispute resolution providers are covered by the confidentiality Family Law Act’s provisions. This uncertainty stems from the 2010 decision in In this case, Rastall & Ball. Riethmuller FM (as he then was) ruled that: The confidentiality protection in s 10H relates to made to the ‘a communication practitioner (emphasis while the practitioner is conducting family dispute resolution’
were performed in ‘silos’ and relevant information was not shared between agencies. None of the services shared its risk assessment with any other service. In response to his concern about the implications of this for Luke’s safety, Judge Gray recommended the Victorian government ‘identify legislative or policy impediments to the sharing of relevant information, and remove such impediments’, so that all relevant agencies ‘are able to share relevant information in relation to a person at risk of family violence’. The report of the Royal Commission into Family Violence also notes that the sharing of risk assessment information has the potential to increase victim safety, improve case management and coordination, reduce the need for victims to re-tell their stories, and increase the accountability of perpetrators. The Royal Commission has recommended the enactment of dedicated family violence information sharing legislation in Victoria (discussed in Chapter 4). Reflecting similar concerns, two submissions to Council’s reference proposed that family dispute resolution services should be able to share their screening assessments with the courts where they have safety concerns for a child or parent. However, in keeping with the view espoused by many stakeholders that there should be no change to the current provisions regarding confidentiality and inadmissibility of disclosures, there was also some strong opposition to this proposal. For example, the submission from the FRSA noted in relation to its survey of members that: … all respondents were of the view that particular aspects of counselling and FDR should remain confidential (ie intake assessment, case file notes). VLA also opposed any proposal to remove the confidentiality protections from intake processes, noting that ‘during the assessment interview, a party will often seek assurances that the information collected is protected by confidentiality’. VLA expressed particular concern that any incursions into the confidentiality of intake assessments could ‘result in parties failing to raise safety concerns’ during the screening process. Council also notes that the joint submission from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children's Court of Victoria proposed that risk assessments conducted by support agencies should not be shared without client consent. A number of submissions noted that it remains unclear whether intake assessments conducted by family dispute resolution providers are covered by the Family Law Act’s confidentiality provisions. This uncertainty stems from the 2010 decision in Rastall & Ball. In this case, Riethmuller FM (as he then was) ruled that: The confidentiality protection in s 10H relates to ‘a communication made to the practitioner while the practitioner is conducting family dispute resolution’ (emphasis
Family-with-Complex-Needs-Intersection-of-Family-Law-and-Child-Protection-Systems-Final-Report-Terms-3-4-5.DOCX