Mental health of children and adolescents in Australian alternate places of immigration detention

Self-harm among asylum seekers in Australian onshore immigration detention: how incidence rates vary by held detention type

“…APODs are places designated by the DIBP to be used for detaining asylum seekers that are less secure than other types of held detention, and purportedly have a more domestic environment (generally for housing children and families), to allow more privacy, and the opportunity to do things together [4]. Reports [5,25] from the period in question indicate, however, that APODs were often immigration detention centres that were given a number of superficial improvements (for example, being cleaned and made more functional) and accompanied by a name change. Testimonies from mental health clinicians who have worked in APODs have also highlighted that whilst APODs were meant to provide a more supportive environment for the most vulnerable asylum seekers (including children and families), these closed, institutionalised environments were not conducive to managing the health of those held there [25].…”

“…Reports [5,25] from the period in question indicate, however, that APODs were often immigration detention centres that were given a number of superficial improvements (for example, being cleaned and made more functional) and accompanied by a name change. Testimonies from mental health clinicians who have worked in APODs have also highlighted that whilst APODs were meant to provide a more supportive environment for the most vulnerable asylum seekers (including children and families), these closed, institutionalised environments were not conducive to managing the health of those held there [25]. Furthermore, as canvassed at length in the 2014 Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention [5], closed detention environments, such as APODs, often result in parental disempowerment, as parents are not allowed control or authority, even over the most routine of everyday matters, such as accessing nappies, bottles and baby food, to other matters, such as decisions regarding schooling.…”

“…As reported by the AHRC [5], for example, children detained in Christmas Island (APODs) had almost no school education between July 2013 to July 2014, something parents were powerless to alter. Indeed, the observations of those who have worked in APODs [25] have further highlighted that 'this lack of autonomy frequently became distressing for parents' … with 'children quickly becoming aware of this distress, which in turn created what could be described as selfperpetuating distress and helplessness about parenting, roles and attachment' (p. 526). Additional features of APODs observed to impact on the mental health of those detained there include serious concerns around child protection, including notifications and inadequate responses to reports of child abuse [5,25].…”

Temporal variations in the distribution of self-harm episodes and methods across the Australian asylum seeker population: An observational study

“…Furthermore, as both ITAs and APODs were used for housing families with children, it is likely that attempting to carry out parenting tasks in the late evening in such environments, with little autonomy or flexibility, was experienced as particularly challenging for both detained parents and children [26]. Indeed, research has found that held detention environments, including both APODs and ITAs, frequently contributed to feelings of parental disempowerment, with parents often stripped of control over their everyday routines, including organising mealtimes in the evenings to suit children's bedtimes or easy access to bottles and nappies, as needed, including late at night [27][28]. Of relevance to the present study is that previous research has found that parental disempowerment creates ongoing feelings of distress and helplessness, leading to a deterioration in mental health [29], which in turn may precipitate acts of self-harm.…”

Do codes of ethics and position statements help guide ethical decision making in Australian immigration detention centres?

“…As can be imagined with these conditions Australian immigration detention violates or impinges upon almost all human rights and international legal instruments to which Australia is signatory [11] including the right “to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” [12]. The impact of these policies on health and wellbeing has also been well established, with all studies, testimony and evidence from inquiries suggesting that detention has a devastating impact on the health of detainees [13–15].…”