Ungdomar med psykosociala problem En studie om gränsdragningen mellan LPT och LVU

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this essay is to investigate the distinction between the coercive laws LPT (Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (1992:1128)) and LVU (Care of Young Persons Act (1990:52)) in order to see to what extent the current regulations provide comprehensive protection for young people with mental health difficulties. What is considered "serious mental disorder" (3 § LPT), and "socially destructive behaviour" (3 § LVU) will be investigated in this paper with a traditional jurisprudential method. In order to take a closer look on how the administrative courts administer the necessary conditions for young persons with mental difficulties, a case study of 105 administrative court rulings from the autumn of 2013 has been done. Both legislations are coercive and protective legislations, with a purpose to take action and provide care when this cannot be achieved in a voluntary way. LVU aims at young persons with behavioural problems, risking their health and development, while LPT aims at those who need psychiatric expertise, age independent, due to mental health issues. Both legislations are generically phrased in order to cover a number of different conditions. The distinction between these two legislations seems to be with the seriousness of the mental disorder. According to LPT, the type and severity of the disorder should be assessed. The empirical study in this paper shows that compulsory care according to this law is applied to young persons with serious self-harm behaviour, eating disorder or suicidal actions, where the care seems to have the character of life support. Psychosis (mentioned in the preparatory work) only occurs in a few cases. Self-harm behaviour, anxiety and depression are also among the LVU cases, but seems to be of a milder character. Young persons, who are cared for according to LVU, often have several behaviours that are assessed to put the young person at risk. Aggression and externalizing behaviour is very common. Neuropsychiatric function disability is very common among the young persons in care according to LVU, often combined with additional psychiatric problems. According to HFD (Supreme Court) practice, the behaviour is not socially destructive in the meaning of LVU, if it can be considered a symptom of the function disability. Those who will not receive care due to this will be at risk of ending up in a grey area, if LPT is not applicable either. In these cases, there is a flaw in the social safety net. The care needs are obvious, but LPT cannot be applied. Though, the empirical study shows that the court only reached such conclusions in very few cases, but it was discussed in several cases, where the conclusion was that such a connection could not be determined. One explanation could be the difficulty to determine such a connection. The conclusion in this essay is that the investigation supports the fact that there are some flaws in current regulation and practice with regards to social protection for young persons with psychosocial problems. Additional flaws can be at hand, but these have not been identified within the extent of this essay. In order to do this, additional investigations are necessary.