Well, I think I’m going to get myself one of these; I’m going to work on the theory that the more tests I can put myself through, the more assessments I have, the more consultants I see, the more research I can do, the more knowledgeable I shall become about Bipolar. Knowledge is Power said Socrates and increased knowledge may bring about some much-needed questioning of how Bipolar is diagnosed and therefore the validity of such diagnoses in their application to determining someone’s parenting or employment ability…..
Bipolar case stirs debate about at-home genetics testing
The Associated Press Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/mar/25/bipolar-case-stirs-debate-about–home-genetics-tes/
SAN DIEGO — Dr. John Kelsoe has spent his career trying to identify the biological roots of bipolar disorder. In December, he announced he had discovered several gene mutations closely tied to the disease, also known as manic depression.
Then Kelsoe, a prominent psychiatric geneticist at the University of California-San Diego, did something provocative for the buttoned-down world of academic medical research: He began selling bipolar genetic tests straight to the public over the Internet last month for $399.
His company, La Jolla-based Psynomics, joins a legion of startups racing to exploit the boom in research connecting genetic variations to a host of health conditions. More than 1,000 at-home gene tests have burst onto the market in the past few years.
The proliferation of these tests troubles many public health officials, medical ethicists and doctors. The tests receive almost no government oversight, even though many of them are being sold as tools for making serious medical decisions.
Health experts worry that many of these products are built on thin data and are preying on individuals’ deepest anxieties.
“People are always rushing to the market on the basis of one or two studies,” said Dr. Muin Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We have very little evidence that telling people their genetic information is going to make any difference.”
Tests have become available claiming to help predict and diagnose everything from serious illnesses like cancer and Alzheimer’s to athletic ability and a person’s ideal diet. Psynomics’ offering is one of the first psychiatric gene tests on the market.
Kelsoe, 52, acknowledges that bipolar disorder probably results from a combination of genetic factors and life experiences, and that the presence of these gene variations does not at all mean that someone will, in fact, develop the disease. He admits, too, that his findings about the genetic basis of the illness are far from complete.
But he said his test is a vital starting point toward moving away from the notoriously tricky practice of diagnosing bipolar disorder based purely on a person’s behavior.
“The goal of this is to try and help doctors make an accurate diagnosis more quickly so the patient can be treated appropriately,” Kelsoe said. “Anything is going to help, even if it just helps a little bit.”
Bipolar sufferers experience intense mood swings as they cycle between manic, sometimes delusional highs and depressive lows that can lead to suicide if untreated. The disease is often misdiagnosed as other forms of depression, which delays treatment and can result in the prescribing of antidepressants that make some patients’ symptoms worse.
To take the test, patients receive by mail a plastic cup that they spit into, seal and send back to Psynomics. The company analyzes DNA in the saliva.
Psynomics will send patients’ test results only to their doctors to avoid the risk of self-diagnosis.
The report that accompanies those results instructs doctors that a positive test means patients are two to three times more likely to have bipolar disorder. But the studies from which those figures come also show the gene variations themselves are rare even among those with bipolar.
The report also points out that for now, the test is valid only for whites of Northern European ancestry who show some behavioral symptoms and have at least one other bipolar family member.
Patients taking Psynomics’ bipolar test may feel branded by a positive result, even if they are not ultimately diagnosed with the disorder, said Hank Greely, a professor of law and genetics with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. Or they may feel false hope from a negative result, despite the company’s disclaimers.
Likewise, doctors have little training beyond what companies tell them when it comes to applying the test results. “They may make a foolish decision that backfires to put you on meds,” Greely said. “Or they may make a decision that backfires not to put you on meds.”
Unlike many tests for other conditions on the market, Psynomics does not claim its bipolar test can predict a person’s risk of developing the disorder later in life. It is meant to be used as a purely diagnostic tool for patients already showing symptoms.
That is an important distinction that makes the Psynomics test more responsible than others that promise a glimpse into the genetic crystal ball, according to Dr. Greg Feero, head of genomic health care at the National Human Genome Research Institute.
“Now you’re talking about an individual who has symptoms or signs that already put them in a very different risk category than someone who has no symptoms or signs,” Feero said.
Among hundreds of families Kelsoe has studied, one of the gene variations in the Psynomics test showed up in 1 percent of those unaffected by the disorder versus 3 percent who are affected. The other variation appeared in 7 percent of those without bipolar compared to 15 percent who have the disease.
Many other genes interacting with a patient’s environment contribute to the development of bipolar disorder, Kelsoe and other researchers believe, meaning no single genetic variation ultimately causes the disease. Researchers in Kelsoe’s lab are working to track down more genes.
“Why are we starting before it’s finished? You’ve got to start somewhere,” Kelsoe said. “Even if we knew everything about the genes, which we certainly don’t, it’s never going to be 100 percent predictive.”
Psynomics has sold only a few tests so far but is projecting sales of 1,800 tests in 2008 and 30,000 in the next five years.
In coming months, at least two other startups led by genetic researchers are set to release their own psychiatric genetic tests. One test claims to predict the risk of developing schizophrenia. The other is designed to forecast the likelihood that some medications for major depression could heighten suicidal thoughts in patients.
The American Psychiatric Association has yet to create an official policy on genetic testing. A fact sheet issued by the Federal Trade Commission advises consumers to be wary of assertions made by at-home genetic testing companies.
The Food and Drug Administration does not evaluate the tests for accuracy, though a panel is working on a set of standards for the growing industry.
For now, worry persists that with the proliferation of tests, there is too little understanding of what to do with the results, or what they mean.
“We just don’t know how people will use the information,” said Dr. Jinger Hoop, a professor of psychiatric genetics and medical ethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. “We don’t know whether it will be helpful to them in the long run.”
Worker with Bipolar Disorder to Receive $91,000 in Disability Discrimination Case Settled by EEOC
Employer’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Rejected by Court in Rare EEOC Litigation on Issue of Psychiatric Disability
DALLAS - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today (2003) the settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Lincoln, Nebraska-based Voss Electric Company (Voss) for $91,250 on behalf of a former worker with bipolar disorder. Voss is a distributor of commercial lighting products, with 12 branches and 16 sales locations located throughout the central United States.
In its lawsuit, case number CIV-02-92-C in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, the EEOC charged Voss with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by terminating a long-time employee of its Oklahoma City facility who needed in-patient care due to bipolar disorder, a psychiatric disability. Rather than allow the employee the additional time off recommended by his physicians, Voss fired him by taping a termination letter to the front door of his home, the EEOC said in the suit.
Voss had filed a motion requesting the Court to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit, but the Court ordered that the case be tried. On February 28, 2003, the Court, in a detailed 17-page opinion, ruled against Voss on all arguments raised against the EEOC, and held that the EEOC’s claims should be submitted to a jury for trial.
The Court ruled that the EEOC had submitted evidence that the former employee’s mental illness, at the time of his termination, severely impaired a number of his major life activities, including thinking, interacting with others, communicating with others, and the ability to take care of himself. Voss then argued that, at the time of his termination, the former employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his job.
The Court, however, ruled that a jury should determine whether the employee was entitled to a reasonable medical leave to enable him to recover sufficiently to return to his former position. After the Court’s ruling, the parties reached an agreement embodied in a Consent Decree approved and signed by the Court.
“For years I did a good job for this company, but soon after I became ill they discarded me as I was trying to get well, which just compounded my struggles,” the fired employee said. “I am thankful to the EEOC for standing up for me and obtaining a fair settlement.”
Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We should credit the sound legal analysis by the Court in this case. This is a difficult area of law to enforce due to interpretational issues challenging the courts, but the EEOC will not shrink from the task of educating the public about the ADA through the pursuit of civil actions when necessary. Decisions like this one which allow a jury to apply the law to specific facts can give victims of disability discrimination confidence that their voice will be heard.”
The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. The Consent Decree settling the suit provides monetary and prospective non-monetary relief, including training of all Voss employees, officers, managers, and supervisors on the requirements of the ADA, and the posting of a notice informing employees of their rights under federal law at all of its locations.
“Mentally disabled employees are protected under the ADA just as those who are physically disabled,” said Sidney B. Chesnin, lead trial counsel for the EEOC. “Disabled employees are entitled to consideration of a reasonable accommodation for their disability. By simply giving a worker a reasonable period of leave to adjust to a medical condition related to a disability, the employer can often pave the way for the return of a productive employee.”
In addition to enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments, the EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Please could any of you help with this research? It will be very helpful as it may provide judges acting in Family law cases under the Children’s Act to be better informed about the impact of bipolar on the family. This would provide an objective, empirical based evidence on which they could draw conclusions, rather than simply hearing highly subjective, hostile evidence from ex spouses….
http://www.manchesterusersnetwork.org.uk/?p=667
“If you have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and would like to help with research looking into bipolar disorder and the impact on family relationships please read on, without volunteers psychological research would grind to a standstill, you will be very much appreciated by some pretty clever people for taking part in the study” - Rob, webmaster for M.U.N.
We are carrying out a study across the North West that investigates the needs and experiences of people with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and their family or friends. This aims to help in the development of family interventions to support people with the diagnosis and those around them.
We are looking for pairs of people who are both willing to take part, consisting of a person with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and their relative or close friend. The study will involve meeting separately with a trained researcher at your home, to complete a number of interviews and questionnaires that will explore your experiences. These will be used to identify links between the symptoms of the person with bipolar disorder and the needs and responses of their relative or friend.
The study will be taking place until March 2009, and at the end we will get in touch to let you know the findings.
If you would be interested in taking part, or in finding out more about the study, please contact
Lalitha (Lali) Iyadurai, Trainee Clinical Psychologist at the University of Manchester
Email: Lalitha.Iyadurai@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
Tel: 07962 997070
I have been conducting research into legal cases involving people with Bipolar and have found this one regarding an employee who was dismissed for having a breakdown at work….
For details see the Disability Rights Commission website (UK organisation) http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/drc/the_law/drc_legal_cases/impairment/mental_health_service_users_an/dismissal_of_person_with_bipol.html
Dismissal of person with bipolar affective disorder for alleged gross misconduct DRC00020
Summary: The client was diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder. Her condition is adequately stabilised with medication. In April 2000 the client was dismissed from her employment for what her employer described as ‘gross misconduct’ after she had a mental breakdown at work and was admitted to hospital. The client considers that her employer discriminated against her by terminating her employment for a reason relating to her disability (i.e. dismissing her when she broke down at work) and failing to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her particular needs.
Interest: The case highlights the issue of retention of a disabled person’s employment through the provision of reasonable adjustments rather than proceeding straight towards dismissal.
Outcome: ET held that client had been unlawfully treated less favourably because of her disability but did not rule that it was an appropriate case for the Respondent to make reasonable adjustments. At the Remedies Hearing on 23 July 2001 the Respondent was ordered to pay the total sum of £23,069.80 including an award of £8,000 (plus interest) for injury to feelings.
US Court ruling “Bipolar Disorder is physical disorder and not a mental illness” :
Implications for discrimination by insurers against mental health problem
(Article from Equilibrium website) http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354
This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder
It has reluctantly been accepted by individuals suffering from bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness) and other mental health disorders that they face problems with regard to insurance of all types. Life insurance, personal income insurance and motor insurance are all affected by history of pre-existing ill health of any type but some policies specifically exclude cover for the de-novo development of ‘mental illness’ during the term of the policy, treating it differently from ‘physical disorders”, as well as imposing larger premiums or imposing other limitations on people with known mental health problems.
A court ruling on this issue in the US which is of considerable significance in this area has not been picked up at all by the popular media or the professional literature either within or outside of the US. Although not of direct legal impact outside of the US, we believe this case raises important issues about the way both employers and insurers deal with claims arising from the development of mental health problems. It also raises more general issues regarding differential stigma of ‘mental’ versus ‘physical’ ill health. This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder’.
The Case: Fitts v. Fannie Mae[1]
The ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involves an employee of a major mortgage company who developed bipolar disorder and whose employee disability insurance provider stopped paying disability benefits after 24 months on the grounds of bipolar disorder being a ‘mental illness’. The policy provided cover until the age of 65 for physical disability. Ms. Fitts had worked for the company for 13 years before she was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1995. The employee- Ms. Jane Fitts, successfully brought a case against both the employer and the insurer arguing that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall in the category “mental, emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type”. The court awarded “prejudgment interest on all sums due her and the costs of this action “.
Three pieces of evidence were presented to back this argument, and two expert witnesses, including Miss. Fitts’ own psychiatrist, provided evidence:
1. Ms. Fitts’ father and brother showed symptoms of the disorder and so a hereditary predisposition coupled with having the disorder showed the genetic nature of the disorder, which must therefore have a physical basis.
2. Brain scans of Ms. Fitts showed excessive age-controlled atrophy of the left parietal lobe and abnormal wave activity on the left side of the brain.
3. Ms. Fitts suffered from physical symptoms such as headaches, chest pains, and insomnia that were ascribed to bipolar disorder.
Prof. Frederick T. Goodwin from the George Washington School of Medicine stated: “bipolar disorder is a physical illness because it is a neurobiological disorder that affects the physical and chemical structure of the brain”. He supported the claims listed above, also making the point that susceptibility to pharmacological therapy suggest a physical cause. Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.
Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.
The defence team argued that bipolar disorder clearly falls within the “mental illness” category because previous judgments had ruled it to be such on the manifestation of the symptoms and because it appears in DSM-IV.
This case was an appeal on a previous judgement against Ms. Fitts’s claim. The first filing of the suit focussed on violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and breached certain contractual and common law duties. This court dismissed all of Ms. Fitts’ claims except her Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. ERISA requires all policies to be written in unambiguous language and given that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall within the definition of mental illness in the insurance policy, the court was bound by the doctrine of contra preferentem, which has been applied as federal common law to ERISA. The doctrine states that in ambiguous definitions the ruling should be against the drafter of the contract.
Other cases
Another case ongoing in North America illustrates the unfortunate consequences of stigmatisation of bipolar disorder leading to an understandable reluctance by those affected to openly disclose to employers a history of pre-existing mental illness. The Canadian insurers of the television series The Dead Zone filed a suit against star Anthony Michael Hall to recoup more than $612,000 for failure to disclose he suffered from bipolar disorder, AP reports. The suit claimed production of the series, shot in Vancouver, was halted from May to August 2001 when Hall was treated for “bipolar affective disorder depression with psychotic features” for which the production company submitted a claim and received money. The case is waiting to be heard at The Supreme Court of British Columbia. (Source: Vancouver Sun)
In a case in New York, which does not have parity legislation, a court ruled that a disability insurance policy is not discriminatory because it provided only 24 months of cover for disability due to unipolar depression, rather than cover to the age of 65 years as it would have done for disability due to physical injury. The appellant, a Charlene Polon, continued to suffer with unipolar depression and has not been able to claim disability allowance under her policy from 1996. The case was made under the Insurance Law, and the court ruled that the law only protected from discrimination “with regard to her eligibility for and access to insurance” and not within the terms of the policy[2]. This case demonstrates that many instances of discrimination continue to occur and that even the covering statutes are unclear
For the rest of the article, follow this link:http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354
It’s been almost 2 years since I was forced to leave my home. The judge envisaged that I would be able to provide my children with a home and that my ex would be able to provide my children with a home, after all we have a Shared Residency situation.
For those of you who don’t know, a Shared Residency Order under the Children’s Act, is one where the children legally have a home with both their parents ie one with their mum and another one with their dad. They are not in a situation where one parent has sole residency and the other has contact rights, which has historically been the case with the majority of divorcing couples. (Typically the mum has had sole residency with the father having contact rights).
(I appreciate that many of you who read this article are in a worse financial position than I am in. I appreciate that many people both here in England and abroad live in similar circumstances and much, much worse. I am very fortunate to have a brother and his wife, who are kind enough and who have a spare bedroom, to put me up for this length of time. At least I’m not having to live in a refuge, or in a shelter……).
Please bear in mind that the reason I am writing this article is to illustrate the inequity in our particular financial circumstances. It is the inequity that I wish to highlight. I also wish to set out for you the legislation and to show how it is being applied to my case as an example).
In fact, the relevant principles are set out in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which, essentially, reads:-
“25 (1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers …. to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say -
(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
(f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;
(g) …the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which … (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;…”
So, now we know the legal position, I will illustrate each of the points the Judge in the finance proceedings (known as Ancillary Relief proceedings) should have covered in his analysis and judgement of the facts of our particular case. (Note: the finance proceedings are a seperate set of proceedings to the Children’s Act proceedings.The Judge in the Children’s Act proceedings does not look into the finances of the couple but merely the residency issues of the children. The Judge in the finance proceedings only looks at the financial aspects of how the children and the divorcing couple are to be housed and maintained).
Taking each point in s25, I will set out the facts in our case:
>(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
Income:
My ex earns £450,000 per annum; I used to earn well as a City solicitor but gave it up to look after our children. Although I am self employed and starting to gradually work again, I earn very little. There is a huge disparity of income between us.
Earning capacity:
My ex will continue to earn this until his law firm decide not to continue to want his services. He is an equity partner and therefore a joint owner of the business so he can’t technically be “sacked” but he can be “eased out” by the other partners. He is in his late 40s so could still get other employment once he has to leave his current firm.
My earning capacity hinges on 2 factors:
1. I have Bipolar. Not only does this result in huge discrimination by employers (80% of the unemployed have mental health problems despite the fact that 90% of them want to be employed (government statistics), but working whilst managing my Bipolar is a challenge in terms of what job I could hold down succesfully.
2. I am now in my early 40s and have not been employed for 10 years. Although I am a solicitor, I am out of date with the law that I used to practise and so am re-educating myself with the current legislation. Clearly, it will take time to get myself fully back into the market, if indeed I can. I am also a woman and women still only make up 25% of partners in law firms, despite the fact that 60% of all lawyers qualifying are women. Women are still paid less than men for the same work, even trainee lawyers coming out of college are paid more. (Law Society statistics).
The Judge has therefore decided that I can be expected to earn around £18,000 per annum. The reality is that I am earning around £4000 per annum currently.
Financial needs:
We both have the need to finance our children: clothes, food, health care for them. My ex has a more onerous need in that he pays for their private education which is expensive. That is part of why he has been awarded more of his income which is fair enough. Because he has the children during term time, he has also been awarded more due to financing the cost of a full-time live in nanny and a cleaner! (The irony is that if he allowed me to look after them, he wouldn’t need to pay for a nanny or a cleaner!).
Other than that, however, I do not accept that his financial needs for himself should be given priority over mine. He should have the same clothing, food and healthcare allowance as me. Yet, his personal allowance is far greater than mine. This has been justified by saying that he works hard and therefore should be allowed more. Yet this flies in the face of the concept (supposedly embraced by the law) of equality in contribution between a bread winner and a parent who contributes by raising the children and running the home (which I had done for 8 years prior to the divorce).
The Judge has decided that my husband should have a disposable income amounting to between 89% - 92% of his income, whilst I should have between 6% and 11%of his income for only 5 years. Thereafter, he gets to keep his entire income whilst I get nothing.
Why is this fair? Apparently, because he has awarded me 2/3 of the value of the capital of the house. This would have been fine, except that the value of the capital is now not even going to cover my debts.
Property:
We jointly own a house worth millions (it was originally valued at around £3.5 - £4 million but the last offer we had was £2.5 million due to the recession and it still hasn’t sold). It has been on the market for 18 months now. The mortgage is £2.1 million and the costs of the sale will amount to around 1.5% of the value) Once you split the remainder, I am left with around £200,000 out of which I have to pay my legal fees and other debts amounting to £450,000. I therefore have no capital with which to buy a house and will be left with circa £250,00 worth of debt. Given my income position, I will have to declare myself bankrupt as I cannot clear these debts.
As a direct contrast, I do not have a home of my own at all, I have been awarded 6-11% of his annual salary out of which I have to pay £1500 per month on debt repayments. I therefore cannot afford to even rent a home. For the past year, I have had to borrow my boyfriend’s 11 year old car to drive the 120 mile round trip to see the children.
I am living in my brother’s spare bedroom in which the children and I have to live during the 50% of their time with me in the holidays and other times (their time with me amounts to around 200+ days a year). We all have to share a bed even though the children are now 10, 8 and 7. Their clothes are in 2 sets of drawers and a cupboard. Their toys are in toy boxes stacked in our bedroom.
When I go up to see them after school, or in one of their matches or for any other time with them, I have to drive 120 miles round trip (around 4 hours in a car) and they and I have to hang out in the town or in a hotel or in a cafe in order to spend time together. I am often having to stay at friend’s houses during the week when I have multiple visits up there. Not only is it unfair on my friends to continue to put me up, but it is exhausting for both me and the children to not have a home to go to when I see them. Whilst they are with me, we all have to share a bed and our one room has to contain all our worldly things.
This is not a sustainable situation.
(d) the age of estrong>(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
This legislation states that, in awarding maintenance, the Judge should give consideration to the fact that each spouse had been used to a certain standard of living during the marriage and, if finances allow, this standard should be continuing: in other words, one party should not be placed in a position of severed financial contrast to the others. The children should not be expected to have to cope with living with a parent who is substantially poorer than the other one ie go from a luxurious home to a poor home. Yet this is exactly what has happened.
Prior to divorce, we led a luxurious lifestyle, travelling to several destinations a year, eating out, going to the theatre, holding many parties etc, etc. We were extremely fortunate.
Now, it is very different for me. I am constantly worrying about my food bill, I very rarely eat out, I have been on one holiday in almost 2 years (and that was because a friend lent me her holiday home). Yet for him, his luxurious lifestyle has barely been touched.
My husband continues to live in this house with a full time live in nanny, our 7 double bedroom, (4 with ensuites), 5 reception rooms, 1/2 acre of land, has a full time live in nanny (who even works on weekends), a cleaner, a brand new BMW X5, a new Golf for the nanny and still happily affords to live a luxurious lifestyle, regularly eating out at nice restaurants, travelling and being a member of 2 sports clubs.
Section 25 (d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
We are both in our 40s - he is 6 years older than me. The Judge therefore accepted that he may have less time to earn money than I do. However, the fact is that in his time left, he will earn vastly more than I do therefore this is a skewed concept. If he continues to earn £450,000 for say 5 years, he will have earnt £2.7 million. In contrast, the Judge claimed that I should be able to earn £18,000 pa. If I can work til the same age as my husband stops working, then I can be expected to earn for another 12 years at £18,000 pa. This amounts to £216,000. With my maintenance award (which only lasts for 4 years from April), I will have received £406,000 in the next 12 years ie £33,833 pa.
This is an outright unjust and extraordinarily inequitable situation that I am in. I simply cannot understand how the Judge has allowed this situation to happen.
Duration of the marriage
This is relevant because the longer the parties are married, the more likely it is that they have jointly built a life together and therefore it is going to be harder for each of them to maintain themselves on their own.
We were married for 10 years, together for 13 years. Apparently, this is considered to be a “medium” length marriage.
s 25 (e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
I have a mental disability ie Bipolar. He has no disability. This immediately puts me at a severe disadvantage in terms of my ability to earn a good level of income. His ability is unencumbered.
Section 25 (f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family
My husband’s contribution is clear ie he was the main breadwinner funding our home’s mortgage and bills and lifestyle. I worked throughout most of my marriage on a part-time basis and so earnt very little. I spent the majority of my time being pregnant, giving birth (3 children in 3 years) then looking after our son who has a severe physical disability (ie Type 1 diabetes) which he got age 2. This meant that I could not work full time as he needs 24/7 care.
I also spent a huge amount of time on building our house which was a £1.3 million project. We increased the size of our house from 4000 sq ft to 7000 sq ft.
I therefore consider my contribution to our family as equal in value to his.
(g) …the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which … (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;…” </strong>
This is essentially a pension in our case. I have forfeited the chance of acquiring a pension as I have not been working full time during our marriage. My husband, in contrast, was able to put aside money for 2 pensions albeit that they are not substantial. He will continue to be able to provide for his pension, whereas my ability to do so will be extremely limited.
The Judgement and award:
The Judge heard all the arguments over a 5 day hearing. This is the award he came up with ie a maintenance award and a capital award:
1. Maintenance award:
I am to received 6.7% of his gross salary for 3 years and 11% for 2 years.
Out of this maintenance, I have to support the 3 children when they are with me as well as look after myself.
Typically, any spouse is awarded around 40% -50% of their ex’s income.
Capital:
Usually, the capital is split 50:50 depending on the needs of the children whose welfare is the court’s main concern. The main issue in any finance proceedings is that the children are to be provided with a home. This is why, historically, where the children have lived with their mum, the woman stays in the home and the husband has to move out and buy/rent another home for himself. This is not the legal situation we have: ours is a Shared Residency with both of us legally obliged to provide a home for the children.
We jointly own the home, but I have been awarded 2/3 of the value to ensure that I can provide a home for the children as I won’t be able to do this out of my income whereas my ex could provide a home out of his income position.
Conclusion:
The children and I am now in a position which is unsustainable and hugely inequitable. It is not fair on either them or I to be expected to live in a vastly inferior way to him and I am not going to tolerate it. I have tried to negotiate with him but he says it’s not his problem but mine. I have asked him to come to mediation but he refuses to do so. I have tolerated this for almost 2 years. I can no longer tolerate it and am not prepared to.
Unfortunately, more fireworks will ensue……
Research shows that people with mental health illnesses are more likely to be the victims of violence than the general population. (Graham Thornicroft - Shunned). One study showed that people with mental illness were two and a half times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the general population (8.2% compared to 3.1%). There are many, many studies trying to determine which category of people are most likely to be violent and these studies vary in their conclusions. The role of alcohol or drug use appears to be a stronger predictor for violence than does having a diagnosis of a severe mental illness. As Prof Thornicroft points out, there aren’t studies of the prevalence of violence amonst “the physically ill”….
However, there are many studies which point to the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated against the mentally ill. Some might say that living with a person with a mental health problem “causes” them to become angry/frustrated/fed up with the sufferer and that they are “pushed” into becoming violent towards them or that they are “defending” themselves against the mentally ill person’s “attack” (verbal or physical). The huge problem with domestic violence is seeing through the issue of “who started it” much like a parent has to see through which child hit the other first or which child started the argument. What is obvious, however, (and supported by a lot of research) is that many sufferers of depression and anxiety have such low self esteem that it is very easy for them to become victims of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, ill-treatment etc as they find it very difficult to stand up for themselves or to believe in themselves sufficiently well to be assertive with those around them. People with mental ill health are often told that they have “lost their reason or judgement” and they therefore doubt themselves when their spouse is telling them that they are wrong/stupid/unreasonable/selfish/uncaring/lazy/irresponsible etc etc. They lack the certainty that their own perceptions and judgements are correct as they are constantly reminded that they are “ill”. This makes it very easy for an abuser to get to the core of their victim and succesfully abuse them, hold power over them and undermine them to the point of cruelty. The “mind games” that a spouse can play over their mentally ill partner can be devastating.
This has been my own experience. My ex husband played with my mind in exactly this manner. I now see this and can compare it directly with my experience with my partner of the last 3 years. My partner plays none of these games, nor does he try and control, manipulate, bully or abuse me in any way. I am fortunate enough to have formed such a close bond with another person to enable me to make these comparisons.
Researching the link between mental ill health and domestic violence has been hugely helpful to me in making my recovery. I can distinguish between those behaviours of mine which were destructive and those behaviours which resulted from being abused by my ex husband. Reading the profiles of an abuser helps to recognise a pattern of behaviour or dynamic in a domestic violence relationship. As a result, a person can disentangle those behaviours which are attributable to their own personality and those which resulted from being abused.
One such piece of research is an article from Mr Lundy Bancroft. This article rings so true for me as it is so close to the truth of my own experience. I have highlighted in bold those sentences which are exactly like my ex spouses behaviour. Read the entire article by clicking on the following link or by visiting the Justice for Mothers website:
Here is an except from Mr. Bancroft’s article:
An abuser’s desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping way from him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate “fear of abandonment.”) He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim, including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping. Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.
The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with “his” children; this theme is a common one in batterer groups. (Marie: My ex took out a Prohibited Steps Order against my new partner claiming that he was a danger to my children simply becuase he suffered from Bipolar too). He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations that the new partner is abusing the children, (Marie: there were numerous threatening letters sent to my new partner accusing him of all kinds of behaviour), cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in order to protect his sole province over his children.
A batterer who does file for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), (Marie: my ex spent earns over £450k pa but maintains that he cannot afford to pay maintenance to me). 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator.
There is also evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer’s advantage. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim’s perspective, and can lead to financial ruin for her and her children.
I am still living in my brother’s spare room, 18 months after being ordered to leave the matrimonial home whilst he remains in our 7 bedroomed house. This means that the children’s home with me is still my brother’s spare room where we all share a bed. I have no car of my own ( I have to borrow my boyfriend’s) whilst he has just bought a new BMW people carrier. I have been awarded 12% of his income whilst he keeps the rest. I am over £450k in debt.
Would this happen if I were not “mentally ill”? If I had been strong enough to stand up for myself, and/or didn’t have a set of medical records and a condition that would be used against me in court, would I be in the situation I’m in? I don’t think so. Many of my readers have given similar accounts of how they have been abused by their spouses due to their own lack of self esteem arising from their mental health problems. There are many articles, comments, forum chats where people have said the same thing ie that they have been abused by their partners because they have suffered from a mental health problem which their spouse has used against them to take control, intimidate, manipulate and ultimately punish by taking their children away from them.
Any similar stories out there? Anyone who disagrees with this perception/research? As usual, any feedback gratefully received….
I am a mother animal, an animal with powerful instincts to protect and defend her young from intruders and danger. I am a mother whose whole being has become that of caring for her young over and above everything else, even at the risk of her own well-being. Every fibre of my body is wired in this way and nothing can override it. My programming was set millions of years ago and won’t change over my life time.
My instincts are so powerful that they form a deep part of my subconsious, a subconsious that is there for the good of all our animal young. Survival of the species, survival of the fittest. Those with the most powerful instincts will save their young and bring them to adult maturity. My instincts drive me to protect, warn, hunt down, track every danger, obstacle, intrusion which may prevent me from following through on my mothering. These instincts are so powerful that I spend every night dreaming of my children. Every night in my sleep I am looking for them, tracking their movements, sniffing out danger, hunting down intruders, finding my way to them to protect them from danger, fighting anyone in my way to help them in their distress. I am mistrustful, hyper alert, viscious if they are being threatened, fearless, courageous and 100% determined that they will survive at all costs. My own life is unimportant, I would die fighting for my children with not a moment’s hesitation. Their survival and well-being is more important than my last breath.
I grieve for them daily, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. They are alive but not under my protection, I am helpless against intruders, I am unable to nourish them, to comfort them, to teach them and guide them. My life has become half shadow even in bright sunshine. They are not dead, so I am not fully grieving yet I feel like a member of a herd whose young has gone missing and crying out for them to come back to me. I feel like an animal in a cage in a zoo with her young in another compound. I feel like I am pacing, pacing, pacing in circles, with a hunger in my stomach, restless and unable to settle.
Animal children’s instincts are set to seek protection from their mother. To find nourishment and comfort from them, to follow them, to be guided and taught by them, to return to them at night for safety and protection.
How does it feel for them to return to an empty nest? Animal young often die without their mother or fail to thrive. Some literally wither and die as they lose the will to live. They lack skills to defend themselves. They cannot hunt as effectively. They don’t know where to find the best catch or how to find a mate or worse, how to mother their own children as they’ve lost their role model and teacher. Any nature programme teaches these fundamentals and we all accept them as true for animals. Why do we question it for humans?
Male animals in the majority of species are not the primary carer. They don’t chose to stay with their young and do the nurturing. Even when they choose to stick with the mother of their young, they are distant and uninvolved; their role is hunter-gatherer. THey will fight for their children, yes, and often to the death with an overriding instinct to protect mother and child. No-one doubts that the male of the species is a fundamental part of the pack.
But they are not the nurturers. They are not the one that the child seeks out for comfort, even when both parents are present. This is not the way all baby animals are wired - they are wired to be with their mothers.
We all know and accept these fundamental instincts of animal behaviour. Why do we think that homo sapiens are so fundamentally different that these animal instincts and behaviour no longer matter? We are animals to the core. Only our “sophisticated” brain tells us otherwise. Our instincts don’t listen to our brain. That’s why we have them - they are there to overide the brain, to keep us alive and protect us even when our brain misinforms us.
I won’t settle. I won’t give up. I won’t stand aside and watch another person mother my children. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
Dream diary:
Friday 23rd Oct: I dream that I am at a school function with some of the parents; we are waiting for the children to come in to eat lunch at the buffet. I am looking out for my son, oblivious of anything else going on around me. I say to the Chef” you see, Chef, it’s vital that my son eats before the others, he’s got diabetes, he must eat first and eat well….” I spot him and hurry him to the front of the queue and make sure that his plate is piled high with all the best of the food. I settle him down to eat with his friends whilst I go back to see what’s left of the food. Very little. The chef tells me he’s put some aside but when I uncover the plate, the food has gone. Nothing. I go hungry…..but at least I know my son is eating…
Sat 24th October: I dream that I’m skiing with the children in an unknown skiing area. There are very few people around so it gives all of us room to ski really well. We are in the midst of a strange mountainous areas of craggy rocks with deep cravaces to large, expanses of snow. We are clearly in an off-piste area with much of the snow being fresh with no ski marks on it….The sun is out and the day is beautiful…all in all fantastic conditions to ski in.
My kids and I are happily skiing along when my youngest goes to near the edge. Before I can blink, she has fallen over the edge; I hear her screams as she falls. My pounding heart has leaped into my throat, I cannot breathe through panic. I make my way to the edge and look over…My worst fears are confirmed; she is lying face down in the snow at the bottom of the crevace.
She is dead…..
I awake sobbing, shaking, terrified……Thank God…….it’s a dream…..
Private mental health clinic states rising demand for services from stressed out city types. How will the stress of these people get passed on to their families, especially their children? Does the stress “fallout” from these people amount to the same kind of “fallout” from people who are already suffering from mental health problems and, if so, is their own parenting brought into question? I very much doubt it. Do they fall into a different category somehow because their symptoms are caused by external events rather than internal chemistry? Probably. People will see these people as sufferers of the financial crises and, rightly in my view, feel sorry for them as they face losing everything they’ve worked so hard to achieve. (I don’t personally subsrcribe to the seemingly widely-held view that these people deserve everything they’re getting because it was their own fault somehow for being “greedy”. You simply cannot tar them all with the same brush.) Whatever your view on whether they deserve to lose out or not, their children don’t deserve to have this visited on them yet they will often bear the brunt of the fallout whilst they feel the strain and stress at home.
Yet, I think it highly unlikely that social services or CAFCASS or any judge would hold that these people are “incapable” of looking after their children as a result of any depression or anxiety resulting from these job losses. This depression and anxiety is likely to be looked on sympathetically by those people in total contrast to how they would perceive someone with a mental health diagnosis such as Bipolar who suffers from the same level of depression and anxiety. Would this then be discrimination?
Is this fair? What do you think is the difference between the effect of a depressive illness brought on by job loss compared to a depressive episode in Bipolar? Should they be treated as resulting in an inability to parent their children? If not, why not? If so, why? Your views and perceptions would be gratefully received.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/08/mental.health.financial.crisis
The text of the Guardian Article:
An independent mental health hospital located near London’s banking district has identified a new disorder sweeping through the devastated ranks of City bankers and hedge fund managers.
The clinic says it is seeing more and more cases of “square mile syndrome”, a term it is using to describe stress-related mental health problems faced by City workers as the credit crunch chews through the financial sector, leaving a trail of redundancies in its wake.
Capio Nightingale Hospital, a private clinic, says it has witnessed a 33% increase in the number of City workers seeking advice for anxiety, depression and stress since July, and a 30% rise in patients seeking help for drugs and alcohol addiction - often the result, says the clinic’s medical director, of recreational drug use tipping into full-blown dependence during times of stress. There has also been a 27% rise in inquiries about its eating disorders programmes.
“We’re seeing 25-year-old bankers waking up with acute anxiety and stress, and realising that the job they thought they had for life and the bonuses they had come to rely on had literally disappeared overnight,” says Capio Nightingale’s medical director, William Shanahan, who is quick to point out that “square mile syndrome” is not a medical or diagnostic definition.
“Hopefully, we can encourage more people to come and get help,” he says. “We can draw worrying comparisons with the Black Wednesday days of the 1990s, when we saw a sudden spike in the number of City workers who suffered mental health problems after the bottom fell out of the market. We want to try to avoid this happening again.”
Shanahan says there is still not enough recognition of the mental health problems faced by employees in high-pressure jobs. The clinic is offering a deal where patients who can produce a P45 issued after September 1 can pay for their treatment once they find work.
“Things have got better, but there can be a reluctance to admit you have a problem when you’re in a high-flying job where you are expected to deal with stress day after day,” Shanahan says. “If we don’t watch out, square mile syndrome could be a timebomb.”
On World Mental Health Day 2008 the latest research* we have commissioned reveals that a staggering 49.3% of us wouldn’t feel happy to disclose a mental health condition such as depression at work, rising to almost 54% amongst manual unskilled workers.
The research found that only 18.3% of people would reveal a mental health condition to their HR department, however, 34% of people would discuss their condition with their line manager. Younger workers (16 - 24 year olds) and older workers (over 55’s) were least likely to be happy to discuss their mental health conditions. With 57% of younger workers saying they would not discuss it at all and only 12% of over 55’s saying they would be happy to talk to their HR department.
Respondents from Edinburgh and Leeds were least happy to discuss their mental health at all (67% and 63% respectively). 39% of the respondents from Edinburgh cited shame and embarrassment as their main reason for not wanting to disclose a mental health condition, whereas, 26% of respondents from Leeds cited fears that their employers would not be sympathetic as the reason for not feeling happy to discuss their mental health.
“Despite the office of National Statistics estimate that one in six people may experience a mental health condition at any one time, our research illustrates that people are still very reluctant to reveal their conditions and show any signs of perceived weakness.
However, we know from our work that people with mental health conditions are perfectly capable of managing a job and their condition with the right support from their employers and therefore feel it is vital that such misconceptions are laid to rest”.
Tim Cooper, Managing Director, Shaw Trust
The stigma attached to mental ill health was more of a concern than the fear of possibly hampering career progression among 25 - 44 year olds, with 37% of people in this age group citing shame as their main reason for not feeling happy to talk about a mental health condition.
Those respondents in graduate entry level jobs were the most confident that a mental health condition does not affect their ability to do their jobs, with 29% of the people in this group citing this as the main reason they wouldn’t discuss their mental health.
Respondents in professional sales, media and marketing were most concerned amongst all industry sectors about being treated differently if they were to disclose their mental health condition (31%) compared to just 4% of people within the professional finance industry who cited this as a concern.
Professional Finance also came out at the biggest industry group to cite that a mental health condition didn’t affect their ability to do their jobs as their main reason for not wishing to discuss it.
Overall 54% of people felt that they would receive more support at work for a physical disability than a mental health condition (rising to 58 % amongst the senior Manager / Professional group) compared to only 6.9% who believed they would receive more support for a mental health condition.
” People have become more comfortable talking about physical illnesses over the years, however, there is still a huge stigma associated with having a mental health condition. Dealing with such a problem often leaves people feeling awkward and a culture of secrecy seems to have emerged in which people are frightened to confide in others”.
Professor Cary L Cooper, CBE, Professor of Organisational Psychology and Health at Lancaster University
“There is a clear need for more structure and education on how to support employees with mental health issues, businesses need to create an environment in which people not only feel confident enough to discuss a mental health condition with a line manager or member of the HR team but in which they can also receive the support they need to continue making a valuable contribution. We see the effect that being out of work and coping with a mental health condition can have on people’s lives and we are urging employers to use this website to find out how to make a difference in the workplace”.
Tim Cooper, Managing Director, Shaw Trust
*All figures unless otherwise stated are from a Tickbox survey. Total sample size was 1070 workers. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18th - 24th September 2008. The survey was carried out online.
