Abstract
With growing concerns about the efficacy and costs of intrusive child protection interventions and increasing recognition of citizen rights to participation in governance, jurisdictions are looking to collaborative alternatives that divert families from the courts and out‐of‐home care. In Queensland (Australia), “intervention with parental agreement” (IPA) is one such response. Under IPA, the statutory child protection authority can work collaboratively with families, without a court order, to respond to children assessed as “in need of protection.” In this paper, we use procedural justice theory as a lens to explore how IPA policy is enacted in practice. Procedural justice relates to the quality of treatment a person receives and the fairness of the process than an authority uses during decision‐making (Tyler, 2006). It is associated with voluntary cooperation and compliance; key practice concerns when working to address child maltreatment via parental agreement rather than court ordered intervention. We report on a qualitative study that utilized semistructured, in‐depth interviews to capture the perceptions of 30 practitioners regarding the factors that shape the extent to which they enact IPA policy in a procedurally fair manner. Strategies for enhancing procedurally just enactment of IPA policy in practice are discussed.