This cited 1999 Family Court research which reported

This can include rethinking the role of the adjudicator in hope of administrative justice.  It is brought forward in the above two cases, 7 that active adjudication is an important tool to promote both fairness and efficiency in administrative justice.  In a number of Courts, the adjudicative model has begun to shift from a more traditional, passive approach to one in which decision-makers more actively adjudicate cases and direct the course of the proceedings.  As seen in Childrens Court, it was obvious to all that the SRL was oblivious to the court proceedings and how and what was required off her. This case was towards the final stage of the matter.  It was supposed to run through a 5-day contested hearing, which to the surprise of all parties, Magistrate Zelmk propelled the case to a final conciliation.  This was in favor of the SRL as she was waiting for her legal aid to be approve and running a contested without representation would have been extremely detrimental in her case.  Weather it was biasness of court procedure or not cannot be identified.  As all parties were happy to attend a final conciliation too.  In speaking with the SRL, she told me that being a SRL is difficult as the Judge can be bias and or uncooperative at times in spite of SRL vocalizing that she is not sure what is required off her and felt she was victimized for this. 8 This supports the fact that “Self-representation is almost inevitably associated with parties who have poor knowledge of the substantive and procedural law. In disputes involving children, where the parties must present their cases in terms which best promote children’s best interests recent research indicates that self-represented litigants find this difficult to do.9  The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc cited 1999 Family Court research which reported views amongst judges, judicial registrars and registrars that: