From: Complaints
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 5:08 PM
Cc: Complaints
Subject: Complaint - Seidner - 2015/3329
[DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]
Dear Geoff,
Please find attached documentation in regards to your
complaint.
Kind Regards
Ethan
Feedback
Coordination Team
Ph:
1800 634 035
Fax:
(02) 6133 8442
Post:
Feedback, PO Box 7576, Canberra Business Centre, ACT 2610
Geoff Seidner
g87@optusnet.com.au
Dear Mr Seidner
I am writing in response to the concerns you raised with the Department of Social Services (the Department) on 21 September 2015 about the Family Dispute Resolution service you received at CatholicCare Melbourne (CCAM) auspiced by CatholicCare Victoria Tasmania (CCVT).
The Department has raised the matters you identified with CatholicCare Melbourne who manage this service. The Department’s role is to look into your concerns and the responses provided by CatholicCare Melbourne to determine if the Terms and Conditions of their grant agreement with the Department have been met.
While the Department’s investigation has found that CatholicCare Melbourne has not breached the Terms and Conditions of their Grant Agreement, the investigation found that CatholicCare Melbourne did not fully implement their policy in relation to Shuttle Family Dispute Resolution as they did not provide written information to you about Shuttle Family Dispute Resolution prior to the session commencing.
CatholicCare Melbourne has advised the Department it has taken steps to ensure that its protocols are strengthened and that its staff are fully aware of their obligations under these protocols so that this should not happen to others in future.
Please note case notes of a family dispute resolution session are inadmissible under Section 10J of the Family Law Act 1975 and the Department did not view these documents when looking into your complaint.
Please find the following detailed response to each of your concerns identified in your correspondence with the Department.
1. That Catholic Care failed in their primary duty of providing a balanced mediation between you and Mr Zeimer.
CatholicCare Melbourne in their response to the Department advised that two experienced Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners (FDRP) provided a neutral mediation service. The Department has confirmed with CatholicCare Melbourne the practitioners qualifications and experience.
The Department finds that action taken by Ms Jenkins and Mr Peake to provide mediation complies with the Family Law Regulations (2008) and with CatholicCare’s Family Dispute Resolution Information Sheet. The Department is also satisfied that CatholicCare Melbourne has met the requirements of the Department’s Streamlined Grant Agreement in relation to the provision of Family Law Services to you.
The Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
2. That the mediator Ms Jenkins accepted claims by Mr Zeimer that you and your wife were causing alleged distress to your grandchildren when they were participating in scheduled visits to you and that Ms Jenkins didn’t consider whether or not Mr Zeimer and his wife were actually causing unnecessary duress to the children.
Under the Family Dispute Resolution guidelines, and consistent with CatholicCare Melbourne’s advice to the Department on this issue, it is not the responsibility of a
Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner to investigate claims or points of view made by either party in a dispute.
This is in accordance with Section 10F of the Family Law Act 1975 (The Family Law Act) (10F) which states that: Family dispute resolution is a process (other than a judicial process): (a) in which a family dispute resolution practitioner helps people affected, or likely to be affected, by separation or divorce to resolve some or all of their disputes with each other; and (b) in which the practitioner is independent of all of the parties involved in the process.
From the information provided by CatholicCare Melbourne and yourself, the Department is unable to make a determination on what claims were accepted by the mediator in the mediation session and no further action will be taken.
3. That the mediator Ms Jenkins failed to investigate whether or not alleged stress being experienced by the grandchildren was being caused by a mural, being constructed at their school, in honour of their deceased mother.
CatholicCare Melbourne has advised the Department that the issue of the emotional distress of the grandchildren was raised in the session and there were differing views on the alleged cause of the children’s distress. Had further discussion occurred about the welfare needs of the children, CatholicCare Melbourne would have suggested that referrals to counselling for the children could be made. CatholicCare Melbourne have informed the Department this did not occur as there was only one mediation session.
From the information provided by CatholicCare Melbourne, the Department is unable to make a determination as to whether the mediator knew of claims of alleged stress being experienced by your grandchildren or how this information was interpreted or documented. Therefore the Department is unable to reach a conclusion in relation to this matter and no further action will be taken.
4. That mediator Jenkins allowed mediation to proceed without acknowledgement of affidavits from Mr Zeimer, as well as relevant court documents (including explanations of the grandchildren’s medical ailments).
The Department has been advised by CatholicCare Melbourne that the two Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners involved in the session had copies of the Family Law Court Final Orders which had been made in 2012 prior to commencing mediation. CatholicCare Melbourne have also advised it was the professional judgement of the practitioners not to discuss previous affidavits or determine the facts of the case from previous Family Court dealings but attempt a resolution with the parties in good faith by focusing on the immediate issues brought to the session in relation to contact with your grandchildren.
Due to the uniqueness and complexity of individual case management, the Department does not have the expertise or authority to question the professional judgement of practitioners, or to express a view about the result of a delivered service.
The Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
5. That mediator Jenkins allowed mediation to proceed without allowing you the opportunity to point out Mr Zeimer’s claims against you, claims made years prior which were proven to be fraudulent by the family court.
CatholicCare Melbourne has advised the Department that in the one shuttle session the practitioner requested that the parties focus primarily on current and future issues in the meditation process and time did not allow for the exploration of other issues. CatholicCare Melbourne has advised the Department that further mediation sessions were offered to both parties. However, as this did not proceed additional issues were not considered.
The Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
6. That mediator Jenkins did not consult with you and used her own initiative to ensure that you and your wife would not meet face to face with Mr Zeimer during mediation sessions.
CatholicCare Melbourne has confirmed that in making a decision to conduct shuttle mediation between you and Mr Zeimer, the practitioners consulted with both parties prior to the session commencing, advising them that the shuttle mediation was going to be used and was appropriate.
CatholicCare Melbourne acknowledges that the consultation process to proceed with mediation via the shuttle process should have occurred with the provision of written information on shuttle mediation, as per their policy, and occurred prior to the day of the session.
The Department considers that CatholicCare Melbourne could have done more to ensure that you were aware of the shuttle mediation process. However, we are satisfied that the changes proposed by CatholicCare will ensure that this problem does not happen again in the future. The Department will seek assurance from CatholicCare Melbourne that these policies are in place for all of its Family Dispute Resolution services.
7. That based on a meeting with mediator Jenkins, Mr Zeimer stopped the grandchildren’s visits to you and your wife, despite court orders permitting scheduled visits. These court orders were provided to Jenkins and they were ignored.
CatholicCare Melbourne has advised the Department they “unreservedly refute” the allegation that they directed Mr Zeimer to stop your grandchildren from having contact with you and your wife. CatholicCare Melbourne has also advised the Department that they are not aware of what action Mr Zeimer took after the FDR session and did not advise him of the actions he should take.
The Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
8. That CatholicCare leaked your private documents with Catholic Care to Mr Zeimer.
CatholicCare has advised the Department that it did not provide your private documents to Mr Zeimer. Family Dispute Resolution Partitioner’s are bound by confidentiality provisions as detailed on Section 10H of the Family Law Act 1975, which states that a
Family Dispute Resolution practitioner must not disclose a communication made in Family Dispute Resolution unless the disclosure is required as authorised under the Act.
The Department has also viewed CatholicCare Melbourne’s confidentiality policy which guides its practice in the areas of privacy and confidentiality. This policy meets the Department’s requirements and the Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
9. That CatholicCare and Gadens solicitors, wrote to the grandchildren’s school, banning you and your wife from visiting their school by misrepresenting Court Documents.
CatholicCare has advised the Department that they did not write to or have any contact with the children’s school. There is no evidence on its file, or assessed as part of this review of your complaint, to support this claim.
The Department considers that the explanation provided by CatholicCare Melbourne is appropriate and no further action will be taken.
Thank you for bringing these matters to the attention of the Department. All feedback helps us to ensure that our providers deliver high quality services to the community.
I hope you are satisfied with the Department’s handling of your complaint. If you are not, you are able to take this matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who can be contacted on 1300 362 072.
Regards
Ethan
DSS Feedback Coordination Team
Ph: 1800 634 035
Fax: (02) 6133 8442
Email: complaints@DSS.gov.au
Post: DSS Complaints, PO Box 7576, Canberra Business Centre, ACT 2610
12/11/2015
Our Reference: 2015/3329
testing
ReplyDelete