Introduction

This chapter explores FGCs as an international model of decision making. First it will examine the global context for FGCs, providing a picture of the spread of FGCs across the world. It will move on to examine the differing levels of service implementation, referring to Huntsman's (2006) typology for understanding the implementation of FGCs. The chapter will then focus on some of the outcome studies from seven countries: New Zealand, US, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales; and key themes emerging from the literature will be identified. The chapter will end with a focus on China, as a case study for a country attempting to introduce FGCs as a culturally appropriate method of child protection practice.

The context

FGCs are used in at least 20 countries across the globe (Family Rights Group webpage), including the US, Canada, South Africa, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Russia and Slovakia. They are internationally recognised as an effective way of engaging families in decision-making processes (Barnsdale and Walker, 2007). As the model has been applied in other countries, it has been adapted to reflect the cultures, historical and policy context of individual countries and jurisdictions. Some of the processes are very similar to the original New Zealand model while others are very different and are hybrids of the original model, having been adapted to reflect the context of a particular country or region (Browne Olson, 2009). Often the name of FGCs has been changed. Alternative names for FGCs or hybrid approaches include Family Group Meetings, Family Unity Meetings, Family Care Meetings, Care Circles, Family Welfare Conferences and Family Group Decision Making (Barnsdale and Walker, 2007; Crampton, 2007; Harris, 2008). There has been some criticism of the adaptation of the FGC and it has been referred to by some as ‘model drift’ (Pennell, 2003). Other suggest that adaptation is necessary to ensure that FGCs meet the needs of their population (Browne Olson, 2009).

Historically FGCs have been largely focused on the fields of child welfare (including education) or restorative justice (Fox, 2008). More recently, FGCs have been applied in the fields of social care and health, where decisions need to be made about vulnerable adults (Wallcraft and Sweeney 2011; Wilson et al., 2011).