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:

Wow! Did I hear my children burst with their feelings tonight! They started by saying that they didn’t want to leave me after our weekend together. Once again, they talked about how unhappy they are about not seeing more of me. They started to talk about how they felt about the Judge and her decision to “take away their mum from them.” They were angry and resentful about their situation and were clear that neither the Judge nor CAFCASS had considered them or their feelings at all. So they expressed their feelings like this:

My youngest daughter thought that the Judge should be sent to hell where she would make the Judge sit in a bath full of spiders…clearly, for her, that was the most appalling punishment that she could think of. For her, the thought that someone she hated would be subjected to what they might fear most, surrounded by what they feared most and in a place (hell) where they would have to stay forever being surrounded by what they feared most was the maximum punishment she could inflict.  Mmmmm…….that’s anger for you.

My eldest child started by asking whether she is now old enough to be sent to jail.  I could see that she was grinning mischievously so played along with her. I told her that, under UK law, a child of 10 was considered legally capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and could therefore be found guilty of a crime. She then asked whether, if she was sent to jail, she would be sent to jail with all the adults so I explained that children are sent to a young offenders prison, not with the adults. I asked her why she wanted to know.  She said because she has been wanting to go into the Court and thump the judge really, really hard whilst shouting at the same time “How would you feel if your children were taken away from you! You’re not the one who’s suffering! We are! How would your children feel if they only saw their mum every other weekend! You should have come to our home and see how we are suffering without our mum. You’re not the one having to cope with it all, we are! “

She said that she is very angry still with what has happened. She said that the Judge didn’t come to their home to see how they lived and what their home was like, that the judge didn’t meet them or talk to them or even ask them how they felt about their mum or their dad or what living arrangements they would like. They were just ignored and nobody came to talk to them. She said that she hated CAFCASS too: “They should have a young person to talk to us, someone who understands us, not an old person who can’t listen properly! The person should understand how a child thinks about things.”

My son also described, in graphic detail, all the things that he would like to do to the Judge too; these were all about physically hurting the Judge: thumping, throwing things at her, hurting her REALLY BADLY. He also wanted to shout at her, telling her how angry he was about having him mum taken away from him.

They asked whether they would get into trouble if they did this. I said that yes, what they wanted to do was known in criminal law as “assault” and was a crime which people can be put into prison for. I explained that “assault” was a crime in which a person hurts someone else physically, emotionally or psychologically. I stressed that no-one should ever hurt anyone else unless it was self defense if someone was attacking them. They then wanted to know if brothers and sisters were put into jail when they hurt in each in their fights. I said that yes, when they were older, then if they hurt each other badly, they could be found guilty of assault. Their logic continued: “But all brothers and sisters hurt each other, mummy. They all fight each other when they’re angry with each other; they thump and kick each other. It’s normal so why is it a crime?” I had to explain that, one of the jobs of a parent is to teach children not to hurt each other either physically, emotionally or psychologically. It is a crime because no person should hurt another person EVER even if they are in the same family. They then said: ” but if we are angry with each other, or we get hit, then we hit back. What the Judge has done to us is to hurt us, so why can’t we thump or kick her back? She has really hurt us and now she’s just gone back to her own house and left us hurt.”

I was very struck by the intensity of their anger and the way in which children could think of the most appropriate punishment for someone who they feel has ruined their lives. They have often expressed how angry they are with the Judge and CAFCASS, repeatedly saying how much they want to hurt these people as retribution for hurting them so much by taking away their mum. It is that simple to them: they are hurting, so they want to hurt the people who, in their eyes, have hurt them so much.

I am a religious person and also a pragmatic person. I teach them about the bible and that God wouldn’t want us to hurt each other; that he loves us all, that we are all his children (even the Judge and CAFCASS) and that therefore he doesn’t want us hurting each other. He teaches us to be kind to each other and to love each other. It is wrong to go around hurting people and I stress that “hurt” includes emotional and psychological hurt too. I also teach them about what the law says and that we cannot behave in any way we want to as we all need to learn to live alongside each other.

The quote that I repeat to them is “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Ghandi).

The question they are raising is fundamental: “Who is hurting who?” Who is hurting (emotionally and psychologically) who? If hurting another is a crime and is against the teaching of a Christian society, how do the children understand that, despite the fact that they are being fundamentally hurt, the law states that it is acceptable. I had to explain that there are different areas of law: one law states that it is a crime to hurt another, but another law states that it is not a crime to hurt a child because the law states that “it is acting in the best interests of the child”. The law that governs the decisions about who they should live with tells the Judge what to do and the Judge is following what the law states. The law states that the Judge can overrule a child’s feelings if the Judge deems that the child is better looked after by one person than another even if that is not what the child wants. The fact that they are hurt badly by this decision, does not make it against the law. The crime of “assault” is not applicable here as another law has taken its place.  The children found this, not surprisingly, hard to understand.

I had to explain that, sometimes, the rules that we live by are not always straightforward and, sometimes those rules don’t always make sense because they are so complicated and different rules apply in different situations. The adults make these rules because they understand the different situations. This idea is very hard for them to understand; their view of life is very simple.

The talk from some of the visitors to my site, is that I am the one who is ruining my children’s lives and yet my children’s view is that it is the Judge and CAFCASS who have ruined their lives, not me. You might say that my children wouldn’t want to tell me that they think I am responsible in order to save my feelings; although there may be times when this could be the case, I know my children very well. They are typically brutally honest with me and have no trouble at all telling me when they think I have done something wrong, or hurtful, or careless or not thinking about their feelings. We have a very open communication system and I actively encourage them to tell me openly, honestly and frankly what they are thinking and feeling. I tell them that, unless we know what each other thinks and feels, we cannot make things right for each other. I repeatedly stress that sometimes we are not aware of how we might be upsetting someone and that we are not mind readers so the only way we can understand how each other is feeling is to tell each other. I also tell each of them to “hear each other out” so that we can all tell each other our own side of any situation without leaping to conclusions and judgements and to take it in turns to speak and to listen.

I told them that the Judge made her decision based on only what she heard and that she didn’t hear everything that she needed to hear. I told them that I agreed with them that, the most important people to hear from was the children, yet she didn’t hear them. (I explained that it was CAFCASS’s job to hear the children and then relay that to the Judge). I then told them that she didn’t hear from anyone in my family, or any of my friends and that, if she had, she would have heard “the other side of the story”. Because she didn’t hear both sides properly, she made the decision without hearing all the things that the children would have said.

My eldest daughter then went on to say what she wanted to happen; she said that she thought that a fairer arrangement was to live one week with me, followed by one week with Daddy, one week with mummy etc. They all thought that this would be a good solution, my other daughter saying 50:50…. I told them that mummy and daddy can choose to agree on whatever arrangement we want and voluntarily put aside the current court order if we wish to. The issue is that we would both have to agree on a workable alternative. I would be prepared to try another arrangement if that is the arrangement that the children would prefer. The challenge, of course, is getting my ex to listen to what the children want and putting his own feelings/wishes to one side to enable him to listen with an open mind…

If I don’t work full time, the children get to see me and I’m there for them for their matches, concerts and, well, just “there” for them. The only way they and I can see more of each other than under the strict terms of the court order is for me to turn up to all their school events; I cannot be stopped from doing this as it is my parental right regardless of any court order. I therefore come to all their school events, their school masses and assemblies, their sports matches, their music concerts and so on. I even go to their children’s parties sometimes if it is at a friend’s house; the parents of the birthday children know that the children and I don’t get to see each other much, so they are happy for me to come along…

If I work, they will miss out on those times with me. They already have a mother that they cannot access due to the Court order. I do not have a full time job; I have chosen to be self-employed to give me maximum flexibility to spend time with the children and be there to support them. Consequently, I don’t have much money. I cannot afford a nice car, or expensive holidays or to take them out to restaurants or give them a big house. We have to share a bed and go camping instead of staying in hotels.

I have repeatedly asked them whether they would prefer me to earn enough to buy them nice things and to have a smart car and live in a bigger house or whether they would rather that I have the time to come to all their matches etc. There is a resounding and unanimous vote from them that they would prefer my time than my money. There is not even the slightest question in their minds about that….

The irony is that, because I can’t provide these material things for them, the court is less likely to agree to the children being looked after mainly by me! The idea that one parent (by working full time and therefore not spending time with the children) is more able to “look after” the children because they can provide for them materially is nonsensical given what a child wants. A child wants time with their parents, not a smart car or a big house. Provided the parent can provide food, clothes and a home, who is to judge whether the standard of that material provision is “high enough” to be acceptable and therefore sufficient?

Here is a link to a blog written on this subject from a child’s perspective:

http://laura1318.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-working-mum-from-the-daughters-perspective/

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…..

This case is just so horrible to read. Of course, I am the first to say that I haven’t read the details of the case as I won’t be able to find them given the confidentiality/secrecy of the courts, but I am inclined to believe many of the facts of this case. Equally I appreciate that this account is one-sided - I have not heard the father’s story and we all know that there are 2 sides to every story. So please read on bearing that in mind….

Essentially, a mother has lost custody of her children to a man with a vast number of criminal convictions (including sexual abuse) who is dying from AIDS. The father claimed that the mother was discriminating against him on the basis of his AIDS/HIV and the courts agreed with him. The fact that he is dying from his illness raises questions of how well he can parent the child in the mean time. He’s been given 7 years to live and the child is only 7. Her daughter is only allowed supervised visits with her mum despite having reported that the daughter is being sexually assaulted in her father’s house.

This is an interesting dilemma. I fundamentally believe that no-one should be discriminated against and I find discrimination against HIV sufferers to be totally inhumane. I have watched a dying man in an AIDS hospice and felt nothing but profound sympathy for those sufferers. There is no doubt that a parent can parent regardless of AIDS. However, there comes a time when the effect of an illness on a person’s ability to provide care for a child becomes an issue of concern. If a person has become so ill that they can no longer function properly, then how can they be capable of parenting? If they are no longer capable, then surely the other parent should step in in preference to some other carer UNLESS that other parent is deemed incapable.

So what are the comparables between this case and a case involving a parent with a mental illness? A mental illness, if properly controlled, means a parent can live a normal life. They won’t die from their illness and it won’t deteriorate unless the sufferer refuses medication. Someone dying from AIDS is highly likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and stress and be unable to hold down a job once the illness becomes severe.

Yet to refuse an AIDS sufferer parenting on the basis of their illness was held by this court to be discriminatory and yet the judge in my case was able to decide that I couldn’t be the full time carer due to my Bipolar illness.

Can anyone help me to see this differently? Am I missing a point here? These questions are not sarcastic - I genuinely would like to hear other peoples views on this…

The mother claims that her troubles have arisen from challenging the court system - the more she has challenged them, the more they put their foot down and refuse to help protect the child.

When does a parent’s determination to protect their child, turn into “trouble making” in the eyes of the Court (or a “vexacious litigant” in our English court speak). She has been told that she is simply refusing to accept the court’s decision and therefore she should go and get help with coming to terms with the decision.

I often wonder whether any of the family court judges have lost custody of their own children. If they have, I doubt very much that they would maintain that a parent should be critised for “refusing to accept” a decision which the parent knows goes against the well-being of their child. The fundamental parental instinct is to protect your child from any harm, including psychological and emotional harm. If a parent believes that their child is suffering from the result of not seeing them (which has been proven many times in research), then they will fight, argue and refuse to give up until they know their child is being looked after properly.

Surely, the Judges realise that this is simply a fundamental human response to their child’s distress? Do they honestly think that a parent will give up?

If the Judges themselves could talk from personal experience of how they came to terms with having their children taken away, then their assertions about a parent needing to accept a decision may become more credible.

Until such a time, I am inclined to think that every parent will continue to fight for what they believe is the right solution for their child. They will put their child’s wishes paramount to a judges disapproval.

Do read the following account from this mother - it’s heart rending….

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-abuse/abuse.pdf

 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

In fact 34.5% of respondents said that the reason that they wouldn’t want to reveal a mental ill health condition was because they would either feel ashamed or worried that they would be treated differently. With this percentage rising to 43.3% amongst 16 - 24 year olds.

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.

Alasdair Campbell told Tony Blair that he suffered from repeated bouts of depression and had had a drink problem. Blair had responded “I’m not worried if you’re not worried”. Campbell had had a breakdown, had taken to drink and had suffered from severe depression. Yet the Prime Minister asked him to work for him. Regardless of whether you think Alasdair did a good job or not, it says a great deal about Blair that he is willing to encourage Campbell to take on the role that he did.

Or does it? It is highly likely that Blair already knew that a relatively high proportion of MPs suffer with mental health difficulties and he was simply accepting of the fact. According to research, published on the Stand to Reason website, One in Five MPs experience mental ill health and are forced to hide their problems…..http://www.standtoreason.org.uk/goals

The report published on 16 July 2008 by Stand to Reason in conjunction with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health, with support from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mind and Rethink has shown that one in five MPs surveyed has experience of a mental health problem but fears disclosing this because of the stigma and discrimination associated with mental health issues.

An anonymous questionnaire completed by 94 MPs, 100 Lords and 151 parliamentary staff has revealed that:

- 19% of MPs had personal experience of a mental health problem (17% of Peers, 45% of staff)
- 94% had family or friends who have experienced a mental health problem
- 86% of MPs said their job was stressful
- 1 in 3 said work-based stigma and the expectation of a hostile reaction from the media and public prevented them from being open about mental health issues.

The report shows that despite significant numbers of people working in Parliament experiencing mental distress, over half of MPs did not think they had sufficient understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act to make reasonable adjustments for a staff member with mental health problems and only 17% had received any mental health awareness training.

President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Dinesh Bhugra said: “Sadly, stigma is still widely prevalent. Mental illness comes in many forms across the age span, and is everyone’s business. Mental health and physical health cannot be parted. We applaud this effort to start talking more openly about mental illness. MPs occupy a privileged position in the public eye, and greater openness has the potential to lead to a better public understanding of mental health issues.”

I am strangely comforted by the high number of MPs who have or are suffering from mental health problems as it gives me hope that they may be prepared to challenge the legislation and case law governing custody issues where a parent suffers from a mental health problems as presumably, some of these MPs are parents themselves. If the legislation was handed over to them to change, where would they draw the line in terms of assessing someone’s ability to parent? If changes to legislation were handed over to those within Parliament and the legislature who had direct experience of mental health, I wonder how they would chose to re-draft or re-frame some of the legislation governing mental health issues. If their own parenting was being scrutinised with the threat of their own children being taken away from them due to their mental health problems, would they seek to re-draft the legislation?

My guess is that they probably would. My next piece of research is going to be to try and find out some more about who these MPs are and whether or not they have children. I wonder how many of these MPs may have been diagnosed with Bipolar rather than depression. I think I shall attempt to find out the same with the Judiciary. However, I know that people with mental health problems are not permitted to be magistrates, so I now need to determine whether Judges can be Judges if they have mental health problems. If MPs have to step down having been sectioned, I wonder if the Judiciary have to too? If there are MPs and Judges who have retained custody of their children and yet suffer with a mental health problem, it begs the question of the test that is being applied to determine who is a “fit” parent and who isn’t. I’m sure there must be some method in their madness…..I just need to establish what it is….

For the relevant articles, see the links below:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/one-in-five-mps-suffers-from-stressrelated-mental-illness-868708.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7508128.stm

My daughter showed her chronic shyness yesterday, which I believe is a manifestation of the affect my absence is having on her and the ongoing lack of insight of her that my ex has. Her views and opinions are often ignored by him - something that I have both experienced when I’m with her and him, as well as being recounted by her on numerous occasions which she relates graphically and with a depth of feeling that is manifest in her lack of self esteem and anxiety. Yesterday was a case in point. She was being shown around her prospective new school by children who were barely older than herself yet she could not communicate with them. She clung on to me throughout, despite being with both me and her father, largely ignoring him and not once taking his hand. This is striking behaviour given that she has been largely in his care now for the past 18 months. She is now over 10, but behaved more like a terrified toddler hiding behind her mother’s skirt, than a confident child about to enter her teens. She would not step into any of the classrooms on her own - she clung on to my arm and pulled me into them with her, burying her head into my shoulder as much as she could. She asked questions of me, quietly, so that nobody else could hear and would not look at any of the other children in the eye. Even when were being shown around the art room where she saw the pottery and the art class of pottery skills led by a cheerful, friendly, bright young female teacher, she could not bring herself to share her own enthusiasm for the activity she loves most. Instead, I had to ask the questions for her. Very ocasionally she spoke to others but it was with a manifest lack of confidence.

She has always been a relatively shy child but this has been attributed by her father as being the effect that my continuing presence, my Bipolar and my fundamental personality has had in the children’s lives when I was the caregiver. Now that he has been the main carer for the past 18 months, her shyness with others has increased, not decreased as he asserted in court. If he was the right person for her to live with, then why should this state that she is in have continued? It is clear to me: he cannot relate to her in the way she needs him to. He has a fundamental lack of understanding and empathy with my daughter’s shyness and high levels of sensitivity as her behaviour is so alien to his own. Her high levels of sensitivty both to the affects of her environment on herand to her interaction with others is very similar to my own and I therefore have an inherent empathy and sympathy with this trait of hers. He however has no experience of feeling like this and has not shown any willingness to accomodate this - rather he prefers to tell her that she “is being over-sensitive” or “over-reacting” or “imagining” certain experiences that she has. He dismisses her perceptions of her world to such an extent that she is now highly reticent to assert herself with him. I observe all this and feel helpless as I am not there to help her respect her own feelings and teach her assertiveness. Only having small amounts of time with her doesn’t support the kind of understanding and nurturing she needs to help her validate herself.

Most mothers fundamentally know their child and have an inherent understanding of their fundamental personality and nature. Of course their are exceptions, but it is widely acknowledged by most people that this is the mother’s natural ability and is the result of the close bond that a mother and child have. The net result of this lack of a mother’s input - a mother who fundamentally understands her child - is to produce a child lacking in self esteem, a child who no longer trusts their feelings and instints when their main carer (my ex and his nanny) ignores, dismisses and makes light of their experiences. When I try to teach them how to stand up to him, they tell me that they are “too frightened” of him and his anger and that “he doesn’t listen” even when they do try to tell him their feelings.

An example is that my son was told off by his nanny for being naughty when he ate some crisps and hadn’t restrained his friends from eating them too. The fact that he was having a hypo and therefore could barely function, let alone take his friends to task, was not recognised by the nanny at all. Unsurprisingly, he felt misunderstood, resentful and mistreated. Her lack of understanding of his nature and her lack of experience of his condition has a profound affect on him. He grows increasingly resentful of the limits she places on him with regard to managing his diabetes, with the result that he is now angry about his condition and feels that he is not having the support from her that he needs. This is in stark contrast to how he feels when he is with me, as he knows that I understand his feelings and respect them.

I know these things that my children are relating to me to be true as I experienced my ex husband’s reaction to me over many years when I tried to explain to him my own feelings about the world and the people I interacted with. His usual response was that I was “over-reacting”, was “far too sensitive”, that I “imagined it” and that it was my attitude, personality and behaviour that provoked any conflict with others rather than attributing any behaviour on other people;s part to any difficulties I may be experiencing.

When someone is told this time and time again, it knocks their self esteem and devalues their experiences resulting in lack of trust of their own perceptions. Over time, it is an extremely toxic experience which ultimately can lead to severe anxieties and depression due to the lack of ability to follow through on their need to assert their wishes, needs and feelings.

This is exactly what is happening to my eldest daughter and is beginning to happen to my son too who is also telling me that he is frightened of his father and therefore can’t tell him how he truly feels.

I cannot bear watching all this happening and having to stand on the side-lines unable to intervene to support what they are saying and feeling other than when they are being looked after by me. Given that they are with me so rarely, I cannot provide the validation that they need on a regular basis. This is resulting in my children becoming increasingly uncertain of their interactions with others and a lack of ability to assert themselves in challenging situations.

This is highly damaging to them and, in my view, is causing the “significant harm” that the law refers to in the Children’s Act.

Proving it as a causation, however, is fraught with difficulties as proving a link between his attitude and behaviour to them as being the main cause of these problems is still in debate in the on-going “nature versus nurture” debate. What is certain though is that a child’s personality which is a mixture of both parents, needs to be understood and nurtured by the parent who’s personality best matches that of the child. Certainly, in my eldest daughters case, her personality is much more like mine and she would benefit far more from being with someone who understands her than with someone who doesn’t.

How do I prove this? Ultimately, it will be her choice that counts. By that time, however, she may be so full of self-doubt that her ability to make that choice will be greatly hampered as she may no longer trust her own feelings. Only time will tell…..

I came across this article on Justice for mothers: http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com

It’s a fantastic piece of research and well worth a read…..