The authors argue that divorce court welfare workers cannot adopt a free-floating, non-judgmental stance in conciliation, but must ultimately retain their statutory responsibilities for child welfare and protection, and be prepared to make recommendations in contested cases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
J. Wallerstem and J.B. Kelly, Surviving the Break Up, Grant Mclntyre, 1980, p.36
2.
op cit p 120
3.
Srruth, D. , Sheppard, B. , Mair, G. and Williams, K. (1984) Reducing the Prison Population. an Exploratory Study in Hampshire, Research and Planning Umt Paper 23London, Home Office.
4.
Clarke, R V G (1977) "Penal Policy Making and Research in the Home Office", in. N Walker and H Giller (eds) Penal Policy-Making in England, University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, p 116.
5.
Home Office (1977) A Review of Criminal Justice Policy 1976, Home Office Working Paper, London, HMSO p.10.
6.
Bryant, M. etal. (1978) "Sentenced to Social Work", Probation Journal, 25, 110-114.
7.
Sheppard, B. (1982) "Monitoring Two New Approaches in Hampshire", Justice of the Peace, September 11, 560-2.
8.
Pease, K. and Sampson, M. ( 1977) ` `Domg Time and Marking Time", Howard Journal, 16, 59-64.
9.
For the record, the cross tabulation for the grouped custodial sentences between Hampshire and England and Wales for the years 1980-1 yields: Chi-square = 14.98, d.f. = 1, p<0 001.
10.
Again for the record, the cross tabulation on the same basis as in Note 7 above for fines produces: Chi-square = 10 25, d f. = 1, p<0 005; and for probation produces Chi-square = 0.82, d.f. = 1, not significant
