This paper presents the findings of research into Children's Court practice in Victoria (Australia) regarding child protection matters involving parental disability. The research examined Court records of hearings and considered the practices of the Court in the light of the particular needs of parents with a disability. The research found that such parents were often unrepresented and that formal Court interventions only infrequently made recommendations regarding the support, training and advice such parents needed in order to retain or regain care of their children. The anecdotal experience of parents with a disability that their capacity to care was likely to be more harshly judged than that of non-disabled parents, was supported. The research also suggested that the assumption of a nexus between parental disability and inability to care must be challenged, given the imperatives of legislation and child protection philosophy.

T his article presents the findings from research in 1997-98 which examined administrative review forums in Australia, including the operations of the Victorian Mental Health Review Board ("MHRB"). As part of a larger research project 25 hearings of the MHRB were observed. The MHRB is charged with responsibility for critical decisions regarding detention and the conditions associated with release of a person from inpatient to community care. Although hearings are essentially informal, participants are nevertheless entitled to the guarantees of procedural fairness. This raises dilemmas for the Board, for applicants, their families and advisers, as applicants may through their illness be unable to participate effectively in a process designed for their protection. The article examines how the MHRB actually conducts Its hearings, and the practice and fairness dilemmas associated with proceedings before the Board as presently constituted. It presents an analysis of member's perceptions about the value of the contribution made by their community member colleagues.

In this article, androgenic anabolic steroid policy targeted at American high school sports is investigated. In recent years several states have instituted androgenic anabolic steroid testing of high school athletes. These programmes have produced few positive tests and subsequently have been heavily criticized. A heterogeneous panel of sixteen experts was invited to debate the issue of steroid use among high school athletes using a policy Delphi method. The panel included executive managers from anti-doping organizations, academic researchers and advocates for steroid legalization. Panellists communicated their response to three rounds of questionnaires via e-mail. The dominant view expressed by the panel is that steroid use among high school athletes is likely underestimated and will increase in the future. Of concern were the quality of steroids consumed and the unintended consumption of steroids via tainted supplements. The panel was in near unanimous agreement that steroid abuse at this level needs to be addressed. However, the panel was divided on the ways in which doping policy should be implemented at the high school level. A small majority favoured the inclusion of drug testing of athletes. Those in favour of drug testing believed that educational efforts, while necessary, are insufficient to address this issue. Panellists stated that educational initiatives should be presented using a balanced approach that covers the positive and negative effects of steroids. Moreover, educational programmes need to emphasize alternative approaches to performance enhancement and include a moral education component. These issues were explored and the implications for policy discussed.

No abstract

No abstract