The Gold Coast Child and Youth Mental Health Service came under scrutiny by the authorities. This comes on the heels of the tragic death of 16-year-old Neve in 2024. Neve had been struggling with an acute mental health crisis. So in a moment of desperation, she decided to send an SMS to the health service, telling them that she was going to commit suicide. Unfortunately, the message went unanswered, raising serious concerns regarding the quality of care provided by the service based at Robina Hospital.
Now, Neve’s mother, Sally Wright, is demanding an investigation into the circumstances that led to her daughter’s death. She expressed her discontent at the review’s lack of independence and limited scope. She did not believe it would do enough to address the health service’s own investigation with regard to Neve’s case. The review aims to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of care pathways within the Gold Coast Child and Youth Mental Health Service.
Background on Neve’s Case
Neve’s overwhelming journey through mental health adversity made her extremely vulnerable to suicide. Her call for help came in the form of a chilling text message. Perhaps most concerning is the failure from the health service to respond to alarms. Her death, like many other cases detailed in this ABC report, represents a failure of our youth mental health system at the systemic level.
Sally Wright has made her concerns known about this review process. “It doesn’t look like it [the investigation] will answer all the questions,” she stated. She seemed especially unimpressed by the service’s assertion that it’s solving systemic issues. “They say they are looking at systems and processes, but I don’t think that is enough,” she said.
This review will be chaired by Paul Denborough, a highly experienced youth psychiatrist who has worked widely in the area of youth mental health care. Denborough’s experience is sure to offer rich insights as to how the Gold Coast service might further strengthen its multidisciplinary care pathways.
Community Response and Expectations
The community’s reaction to Neve’s death and the subsequent review has been intense. Queensland Minister for Health and Ambulance Services, Shannon Fentiman, expressed support for the review, stating, “We welcome this review; I can’t think of anything more important than making sure our young people who are experiencing mental health challenges are safe.” She stressed the need to make sure mental health services actually reach the most vulnerable youth.
Tim Nicholls, a local representative, weighed in on the importance of understanding the factors leading to such tragic outcomes. “There is a lot to be done to understand exactly the presentations and the discharges around some of those very tragic circumstances … I think we owe it to the families,” he said.
Even with a new source of funding, the community’s concerns have fueled a growing demand for transparency and accountability in how mental health services operate. There’s a lot of optimism that this review process will result in substantial changes that can help avoid future tragedies.
The Scope of the Review
We hope that this comprehensive review will improve D.C.’s service delivery, but it’s important to state upfront what this review can and cannot do. John Reilly, a spokesperson for the health department, noted, “It’s important to note that this is a service improvement review, not an investigation into any deaths or individual cases.” This distinction has led some, including Sally Wright, to question its effectiveness in addressing the root causes of failures within the system.
Mr. Nicholls acknowledged the sensitive nature of such reviews, stating, “Often these reports do name families and clinical events that occur which are private to those people.” He cautioned the panel to be careful in treating sensitive information, especially in the assessment process.
Therefore, emphasizing systems and processes are key. Stakeholders remain concerned that this proposed fix will actually do much of benefit to families affected by things like this deep tragedy. “We would obviously need to take the advice of the reviewer about the impact of that report, particularly of [the risk of] re-traumatisation,” Mr. Nicholls added.
