Child welfare, Indigenous parents, and judicial mediation

Abstract

Can judicial mediation within a settler state's justice system improve the experience of dealing with child welfare services for Indigenous parents? Interviews with social workers, lawyers, and judges in the Canadian province of Quebec yield little basis for optimism. Adapting judicial mediation will not suffice to decolonize dispute resolution between Indigenous individuals and the state.Mediation fits uneasily with the severe power disparity in this setting. Moreover, the cautious nature of participants' recommendations signals the limited adaptive capacity of the settler state's system of civil justice. The recommendations exemplify relatively superficial accommodation, rather than deep engagement with legal pluralism and Indigenous difference. Constraints on the state system's ability to adapt are both legal and cultural. This study contributes to literatures on Indigenous and colonial legal cultures in relation to child welfare, on access to justice for Indigenous peoples, and on mediation in Canada and elsewhere. INTRODUCTIONMight greater use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or adaptation of its forms improve the experience and outcomes for a vulnerable population dealing with the state, such as Indigenous parents with child welfare services? Social workers, lawyers, and judges were interviewed in a small-scale, qualitative study prompted by and developed with the Native Women's Shelter of

Out of Place

“…Since that time, I conducted a new search of the articles published from the fourth issue of 2021 through the fourth issue of 2022. This search uncovered five additional articlesthree in the JLS and two in the LSRthat discuss positionality or my related search terms (Foster and Hirst 2022; Gonzalez, Simon, and Rogers 2022;Leckey 2022;Bunting, Tasker, and Lockhart 2021;Hunter, Roach Anleu, and Mack 2021). 9 Three papers have three authors identifying their positionalities, three papers have two authors, and one author wrote two of the papers.…”

Introduction

“…Since that time, I conducted a new search of the articles published from the fourth issue of 2021 through the fourth issue of 2022. This search uncovered five additional articlesthree in the JLS and two in the LSRthat discuss positionality or my related search terms(Foster and Hirst 2022;Gonzalez, Simon, and Rogers 2022;Leckey 2022;Bunting, Tasker, and Lockhart 2021;…”