In a combative review of recent conciliation literature, the author argues that the concept has been 'stolen' by court welfare practitioners to serve their professional biases. This distortion of conciliation both undermines its potential and can be damaging to consumers' interests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
For an excellent account of the genesis of 'mediation' and 'conciliation', see Simon Roberts, 'Mediation in Family Disputes', Modern Law Review, 1983, Vol 46, No 5
2.
John Howard and Graham Shepherd , 'Conciliation-
3.
New Beginnings?, Probation Journal, 1983, Vol 29, No 3
4.
Graham Shepherd , John Howard and Joan Tonkinson, 'Conciliation Taking it Senously ?', Probation Journal, 1984, Vo 31, No 1
5.
See Adolph Guggenbuhl-Craig , Power in the Helping Professions ( 1982), Chapter 1
6.
As the final stage of the Conciliation in Divorce Research Project, conducted in the Department of Social Admnistration, University of Bristol, we interviewed 299 people drawn from Bristol and Newport County Courts (all of these cases had involved a dispute over the children and/or the divorce decree) plus a further 51 'consumers' of the South-East London Conciliation Bureau
7.
The Bromley Counciliation Bureau operates as a completely separate part of the South-East London Civil Work Unit
8.
Nils Christie , 'Conflicts as Property', British Journal of Criminology, January 1977, Vol 17, No 1
9.
NAPO Discussion Paper on 'Conciliation' May 1984
10.
Judith Pugsley and Martin Wilkinson, 'The Court Welfare Officer's Role Taking it Seriously? Probation Journal, 1984, Vol 31, No 1
11.
Martin Wilkinson , Children and Divorce (1981 ), Chapter 2, Note 1
12.
L Trilling, The Liberal Imagination (1953), p 214
13.
, quoted by Robert J Levy in Family Law Quarterly, 1984, No 4,p 533
