Abstract Book - International Academy of Law and Mental Health

The Physical Punishment or “Lawful Correction” of Children: AnIssue of Rights and EffectsBernadette J. Saunders, Monash University (bernadette.saunders@monash.edu)Tolerance of physical punishment in childhood reinforces children’s subordination and enhancestheir vulnerability to physical and emotional harm. To date, 193 countries have ratified theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), yet following Sweden’s examplein 1979, only 33 countries have enacted legislation to prohibit the corporal punishment ofchildren in all locations, including the child’s home. In Italy and Nepal, common law decisionsare yet to be codified. Eighty countries still allow the corporal punishment of children at school.This unnecessary response to children continues despite increasing evidence that physicalpunishment is associated with mental health issues and aggressive, anti-social behaviours. Theimpact of physical punishment may be evident in childhood and continue through to adulthood.In this context, this presentation discusses the continuing tolerance of physical discipline ofchildren, with particular reference to the defence to assault of “lawful correction” or “reasonablechastisement” as well as relevant international law. While the potentially harmful effects ofphysical punishment on children’s well-being are noted, children’s rights to dignity andrespectful treatment are emphasised. This presentation also highlights some children’sperspectives on this issue.Informing Decisions: What Lawyers and Social Workers Should KnowMargarita Frederico, La Trobe University (m.frederico@latrobe.edu.au)In child protection matters, the legal and social work professions share a common concern thatthe best interest of the child is served and justice is done. Both professions are informed in theirengagement of this area by specialized knowledge and by critically analyzing availableinformation. Whilst there are commonalities, a tension between the legal profession andstatutory social work exists. This tension has the potential to interfere with information presentedto the Court and thus to impact on judicial decisions. This presentation will explorecommonalities and differences of knowledge and processes between the two professions whendealing with situations related to child protection. Drawing upon a framework of levels ofknowledge, which identifies public domain knowledge, shared professional knowledge andspecialized knowledge, the presentation suggests approaches, which can be taken to minimizethe tensions and potentially lead to better informed decisions.Responding to Vulnerable Children: Developing Policy about the Careand Protection of Children50