Search

Parents and guardians in child protection systems are in unequal power relationships with child protection practitioners. This relationship is experienced as exclusionary or even oppressive by many parents and guardians. For families and communities in the child protection system who experience intersectional discrimination and disadvantage, such as people with intellectual disabilities and First Nations people, this unequal relationship and subsequent potential exclusion and oppression can be even more profound. A growing body of literature indicates that advocacy can assist in addressing unequal relationships in other contexts, such as involuntary mental health. This paper explores the role of representational advocacy in supporting parents in child protection settings through a case study of an advocacy service in Victoria, Australia. Using a human rights framework to guide the analysis, the paper highlights how advocacy can help support rights, but that broader structural change will be required to consistently uphold the rights of parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The balance between care and control in mental health social work is one of constant tension. In the State of Victoria, Australia, the Mental Health Act 2014 gives coercive powers to social workers employed by public mental health services. These include the power to decide if a person needs to be assessed by a psychiatrist, to "take" a person using bodily restraint, to enter premises, and to search and seize a person's belongings. This paper applies a doctrinal analysis to examine the law, then argues that the use of these powers by social workers, where safe, may be less restrictive than when they are used by police or paramedics. The exercise of these powers may be less traumatic and stigmatising to the people who are subject to them, and social workers may be both legally and ethically obligated to use coercion when appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal accountability in mental health care is increasingly gaining recognition in human rights discourse. Negligence is one accountability mechanism that can provide compensation, but has been criticised for failing to deliver justice. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic), along with immunity provisions for clinicians who act in good faith, have shone the spotlight on whether current mechanisms are effective accountability measures. Analysis of authorities suggests that clinicians and health authorities will ordinarily be protected from liability when clinical decisions are made that are consistent with mental health legislation. Yet clinicians often misunderstand the concept of 'duty of care' and use it as an extra-legal power to control. Using a fictional vignette, this article addresses the tensions and dilemmas that exist in tort law and mental health care. Our analysis lends itself to two solutions: the need for effective training and the promise of no-fault insurance schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]