Search

The abuse of older people, often perpetrated by family and friends, is a complex multidimensional social problem. In most Australian jurisdictions, responses are currently limited to either primary-level (information, education and referral) or tertiary-level statutory responses. Outside of Australia, Family Group Conferencing has partially addressed this secondary-level service gap by inviting the older person and their wider family system to identify and establish a family-led plan to address potential or actual risk of abuse. This paper presents the core processes of Family Group Conferencing, including the quality of the established evidence base for its use with older people. The limitations and caveats associated with this approach are explored, and a way forward is proposed to explore the utility and suitability of Family Group Conferencing for adults in Australia in response to some types and severities of abuse and mistreatment. The abuse of older people is complex and under-reported, and many older people choose to take no action as a large proportion of perpetrators are family members. Limited Australian responses focus on either primary prevention or tertiary-level statutory responses. Family Group Conferencing may enhance secondary-level service responses to abuse, mobilising the older person's protective networks, and reducing the risk of abuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental health research, policy, and service provision over the last 50 years have constructed families and their connections with mental illness in various and contradictory ways. Three distinct but intersecting perspectives derive from the clinical mental illness literature, the family advocacy movement, and mental health policy. Within the clinical literature, the perspective of families is largely one of blame and pathology. By contrast, the family advocacy movement has generated the perspective of the burdened family, whereas mental health policy has created the perspective of the obligated caregiver. The result is an ambiguous understanding of the role of the family in both contributing and responding to mental illness. Implications for policy and practice include the need for a commitment to the principles of partnership with families, a recognition of diversity within families, recognising the difference between carer and family positions, and a need for policy to reflect the position of family as both intimately concerned, but not necessarily responsible, for patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]