I wonder how many have actually experienced mental illess or indeed, have done so with no awareness of recognition that actually their own behaviour would be potentially deemed ”mentally ill”………….for instance, the somewhat venomous comments posted by some do seem to indicate quite overtly at least, an intrinsic propensity towards irrational hated, prejudice and discrimination…I do wonder if those posting such sweeping statements have any realisation of how they may be perceived exhibiting such ”behaviours” with ironically (for them) are traits of many forms of mental illess?

Taboo – well we certainly love to hate as a society in general don’t we? I do wonder if it is somewhat more comfortable to always feel that one may discharge responsibility for ones own actions, behaviours, mistakes (does anyone recall the parabol with regards to casts the first stone? ….) ….it does also occur to me that the propensity to divert responsibilty to another more ”comfortable” (and by comfortable I imply not ones self) source is a well known trait of mental illess. Does this in any way pose the question that in fact, to some extent or another we are all mentally ill – I do challenge anyone to ”prove” beyond resonable doubt (which is apparently the expectation of a court – & they certainly seemed to feel that the case constructed against Marie ”proved” her incapacity” to this extent) – that they are infact a person with no blemish that may in some form impact/hinder/scare ect a child – or anyone for that matter – I do welcome any person who has responded to this blog to put forward their case of why they (and not ”mentally ill” persons) co-exist within humanity with nothing but positive influence on their surroundings?

Society is formed upon behaviours, impacts, interactions, uncontrollable elements – the actual reality of this (should one approach this from what I would personally deem a rational perspective…..feel free to disagree!) is that no one on earth exists without knowingly or unwittingly perpertually creating ”impact” on others. This is a fact of human interaction at its very primal level.

The law, constructed to protect, in my mind does not always. This statement relates to all aspects of law. I believe that often the ”justice” sought in law is generally questioned at a time in which the individual concerned is directly impacted by the judgement. Society is by nature – selfish. Perhaps the question here (which I believe, if my interpretation of Marie’s blog is accurate) is the question the viability of a law that here (as in many case histories of similar issues – often to greater and lesser extents) have pronouned the same ”judgement” and removed the rights of one or another or indeed both parents.

Has the questions been address of perhaps how the outcome is (you may not feel this relevant at this stage – but pls read on) impacted by factors other than just Marie’s mental illness? hypothetically, had Marie been supported by a loving, caring, accepting husband who felt that he wanted to support his wife in her difficulties – would the outcome have been different? So perhaps if Marie had not been isolated within her our marriage and family unit (do you see the parrallel here?) then the outcome of her ability to ”manage” or be perceived to manage would have be potentially different. I appreciate this is very much by the by here, however, I illustrate that the situation was made more difficult (and this applies to any situation of any sort anyone is dealing with – not just mental illness).

Who can possibly believe that a man who is willing to beat his wife is incapable of beating his children ……….unless of course you apply the same rationale the court applies in such cases – if Marie was ”unstable” – she was wholly unstable – which therefore dictates that her husband either beats or does not – it is too absolute a conclusion – no one can say with any certainty that Marie’s husband would NEVER harm his children – he has shown himself capable to harm. And therefore I argue why is he deemed more appropriate to raise three children – is beating not considered ”damaging” to a child? If you apply the same rules – same logic – Marie’s incapacity (although I might add that I am still struggling for any evidence of such incapacity other than assumed……) could not also be deemed absolute…..

Each case should be examined upon individual circumstances. Each case looked at for its idiosyncrasies to be evaluated in a manner that would result in a judgement based on anything other than gross assumptions and the ability of a judge to apply their discretion within the realms of how much power they can excercise.

The reality is far from the truth. The reality is one of sweeping generalisation based on statistical evidence that is supported by often inadequate evidence and flawed testimony. That is then used to form a conclusion that can only ever be flawed at best. The fact here is that the approach is wrong, the process is wrong, the law is wrong. Until this is changed, millions of wives, husbands, and most importantly children will suffer. Marie – I applaud you for your battle, your will to fight on and your evident concern for your children to your own personal detriment. I cannot think of better qualities to form the basis of a mother.

Children should be protected, but let us consider what they should be protected from – society and its prejudice ? deprivation of their mother due to statistical evidence and a flawed but persuasive legal argument. Children should be given all they can have, not deprived on the off chance of maybe. Which frankly we all run this risk of – what if one day you faced some adversity in your life, unsupported – you may well find yourself behaving in a way that you do not even imagine. Some, very few infact – mental illness are purely down to chemical imbalance (such as schizoprenia etc) and these cases should be scrutinised to establish the SAFETY of the child, as every case should be scrutinised – however based upon FACTS not assumptions.

I would like to state also that this statement is not intended to approach the ”human” aspect of Marie’s situation as it diverts from the purpose of my post. However, that said my empathy lies with her and her children – whose lives have now been irreparable destroyed by one man’s pursuit of ”justice”. I am not even surprised at some of the comments here as they sadly substanciate my statements on prejudice, avoidance, the endemic nature of many people today to avoid looking within and to satisfy their need to blame as it makes it easier to ignore there faults. The social deprivation of society today is derived in a great part from this deplorable attitude of many today – sadly we now live in a society were decency, responsibilty is devoid in most and the bad out weighs the good.

I’d just like to let you know that my mother brought me up as a single parent with bipolar disorder. She was diagnosed when I was three after suffering from a mental breakdown. There were times when I didn’t understand her and what was happening and we would argue. Over time though I learned to understand her condition. Now we can laugh about it together, we both understand her bipolar disorder and that helps.

Many people have left negative comments on here about people with bi-polar, but did you ever think it’s the person that’s bad and the bi-polar is just the easier thing to blame. My mother and I have a great relationship and a strong bond as mother and daughter. I understand that support from other people really helps, I know my mum needs me and I need her. She is the only person I know I can 100% trust and rely on. It frustrates me now though when I come into contact with people who don’t understand her and are inpatient or rude to her.

Marie I feel so much for you, and your children, I really hope it turns out to be a happy ending for you. I still can’t really believe your story; it seems so unjust to be true. All I can say is keep on fighting your case and DON’T give up. You are achieving something all the time by creating awareness and prividing others with a place of understanding.

2. “You are lucky you get to see your children at all.” This begs the question: whose children are they? They are my children, not yours, not the judges, not society’s, not anyone else’s to take away. It is not for you to determine whether I am “lucky” to see my children.

I ask you what I have done that is so wrong that the likes of you think you know me and my children well enough to make a judgement that is so damning and profound in its ignorance?

Are you saying that no-one with Bipolar should be “allowed” to look after their own children?

“They lie, manipulate and are aggressive…etc, etc” Are you saying that ALL people with Bipolar do these things?

Are you saying that no other person you know ever lies, manipulates or gets aggressive or are you saying that these traits are only ever shown by people suffering with Bipolar?

“They hurt their children emotionally.” What is it precisely that you feel that someone with Bipolar does to hurt their children emotionally?

Do parents without Bipolar hurt their children emotionally in any way?

If not, what is it that people who have Bipolar do that is unique to Bipolar that ends up hurting their children in a way that no other parent does?

“My neighbour is Bipolar”. That’s interesting. I thought people “suffer from a condition called Bipolar” rather in the same way that people who have heart problems suffer from heart problems. Would you state: “My neighbour is heart problems”? or “My neighbour is cystic fibrosis” or My neighbour is cancer”? Or would you say “My neighbour has heart problems?”

This is a classic way of discriminating against people and you have proved my point entirely. People such as yourself would describe those people in society who you wish to reject in the following way:

“My neighbour is a leper” – not “my neighbour suffers from leprosy”
“My neighbour is black/is a nigger/is a coon/etc” – not my neighbour is a person regardless of the colour of their skin.
“My neighbour is a cripple” – my neighbour has a physical disability which means that they are wheel chair bound.

etc, etc.

People with Bipolar have a condition – it is not their defining point.

Hundreds of thousands of people have Bipolar. Are we all lumped together in your mind in a group of lying, manipulating, aggressive people who can’t look after ourselves and who are “lucky” to keep their children.

Do you say the same about people who have alcohol problems, people with drug problems, people with anti-social behaviour problems, people who kill/rape/torture/ strangers in the street, people who have sex with children, people who attack old age pensioners, people who rape children etc.

Do these people “lie, manipulate, be aggressive”. Do these people have children? Do these people “look after themselves”?

I think, Glory, you are the classic case of a person who discriminates against people with mental health problems and it’s people such as yourself that need to look more closely at their own personality, behaviour, parenting and, as Jesus says in the bible: “take the plank out of your own eye before you pick the splinter out of someone elses.”

I agree that is is vital that the children’s welfare is put before the welfare of the mother as they have done in my case – frankly the court has not considered my welfare at all. It is irrelevant to them and they made that clear, despite the clear legal guidelines on taking into account the parent’s vulnerabiliites in addition to those of the children.

Yes, I do think a paranoid schizophrenic can claim they’ve been discriminated against if the only reason they have been told that they cannot look after their children is because they suffer from their illness; their illness is not their fault. However, clearly there would be a detailed assessment by a psychiatrist to determine whether that person’s condition is sufficiently well managed, medicated and controlled. If, in the view of a treating psychiatrist, the condition is not under control, then the court would be right to rule that the children would not be best looked after by that parent.

If that paranoid schizophrenic’s condition was well managed, medicated and under control but the courts still chose not to allow that parent to parent, would you say that was discrimination or not?

How would that parents ability to parent be assessed in light of their condition or are you suggesting that there should be a blanket ban on any mentally ill parent being able to parent?

YOur feedback is welcome.