TO: Wendy McCourt – Director of Child Protection, Child and Family Services

Michael Zimmerman – Legal and Policy Advisor, Child and Family Services

FROM: Miriah McIsaac – Master of Social Work Student, University of Calgary

DATE: March 14, 2019

RE: Child Protection Mediation Practicum Project (Recommendation #25)

Background: In 2016, the Child Protection Act Review Advisory Committee recommended a
jurisdictional scan regarding utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution, including Family
Case Planning Conferencing and Child Protection Mediation, be conducted and policies and
procedures be established. To fulfill, in part, the outstanding recommendation, a research project
was conducted to explore the potential role, suitability, and efficacy of a Child Protection
Mediation (CPM) Program within Child Protection Services in Prince Edward Island.
Summary:

Despite the presence of CPM in the Child Protection Act, Prince Edward Island does not offer
CPM within the current service delivery model.

Section 16 (1) of the Child Protection Act states:

“Subject to the regulations, where the Director has determined that a child is in
need of protection and no agreement has been made with the parent of the child
respecting child protection services, the Director may initiate an alternative
approach to developing a plan of care for the child.”

Research outlining best practices for CPM and a comparative analysis of provincial child
protection agencies across Canada, suggests that CPM can be a viable alternative option to
traditional litigation; however, this approach requires a paradigm shift from traditional
adversarial and punitive approaches towards collaborative and interest-based approaches to
conflict resolution. The Canadian experience with CPM programming has been mixed, differing
considerably in design, impact, and effectiveness, which has resulted in varying degrees of
utilization and success. Findings suggest that CPM requires a comprehensive design process,
paying particular attention to stakeholder identification and buy-in, funding, processes,
organizational culture and change management, and potential barriers and/or limitations.

Consultations with stakeholders including representatives from the field of mediation,

Indigenous community, and program managers proved beneficial to gauging initial support of a
CPM program. Stakeholders believed that CPM, and ADR broadly, would be effective in
resolving conflict in a way that is more inclusive, while also meeting the needs of involved
parties. Stakeholders agreed that there is currently a gap in service delivery, which CPM may be
effective in addressing. Further, this appears to be an opportune time to discuss program
development, as Child and Family Services undergoes significant transformational change at the
organizational level.

Recommendations:

Based on the findings of this project, the following recommendations are made to ensure best
practice in the development and implementation of CPM in the province:
1. Together with key stakeholders (i.e. members of the judiciary, social workers, Child
& Family administrators, mediators, representatives from the Mi’kmaq Confederacy
of PEI), a pilot project be conducted to test program design, protocols, processes, and
efficacy prior to full program roll out
2. A Mediator Roster be developed and contracted to an outside agency to provide
oversight and maintenance of the roster to ensure a neutral and transparent mediation
process for all parties
3. Child & Family Services educate and support child protection social workers and
legal counsel in the appropriate use of CPM
4. Child & Family Services actively promote the use and benefits of CPM to increase
awareness amongst staff, legal representatives, community partners and services, and
clients of child protection services
5. The voices of children, whenever possible, are present in the mediation process,
through active participation or through the use of the children’s lawyer or advocate to
ensure their views are included.