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

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…..

One of the pieces of research shows that mothers who don’t have their children cope better when it is their choice to hand over the parenting to the father; those who don’t choose their role as the non-custodial parent find it much harder to cope with than those who do. That’s a no-brainer really…..

What is really annoying me about this whole Bipolar thing is that I might not even have the wretched illness!! For all I or anyone else knows, I could have been misdiagnosed. My friends and family and others who meet me are all still adamant that I don’t have the condition as I don’t exhibit any of the symptoms. Even my partner, who is himself Bipolar, does not think that I have the condition as I am “too well”.

This makes it very difficult to accept the fact that my children have been told that I am not capable of looking after them full time. If I don’t have this condition, then presumably I’m capable of looking after them. It would also clear my medical records enabling me to find work and drive without all the scrutiny that I am currently subjected to.

So, I’ve been doing some research about whether there are other tests available to prove or disprove the presence of any Bipolar condition that I may have. If I do have it, then it may indicate the severity or mildness of it. If I don’t have it, them I’m off back to court to challenge the decision.

The following paragraphs are based on various articles that I have read but I haven’t attributed them as they were wrong in places so I have edited them eg they state that “all Bipolar sufferers have extreme and severe mood shifts from mania to depression.” As you and I all know, that is simply not true for all of us sufferers who experience a very individual set of symptoms. Anyway, do read on….

Bipolar Disorder and the Brain

Bipolar disorder and the shifts in mood that come with it can ruin lives. It often goes unrecognized as an illness and people can suffer for years before it’s properly diagnosed and treated. Now, however, new research that analyzes the bipolar brain could lead to better diagnostic techniques and improved treatment. Recently researchers discovered that abnormalities in certain brain areas that govern emotion can occur in those with the ailment. These findings and others may eventually provide researchers with new tools to diagnose and treat the ailment earlier and more effectively.

More than 2 million Americans and around 1 million Britons have bipolar disorder and the shifts in mood that come with it. Those with the illness in its most severe form (Bipolar 1) can cycle between episodes of manic highs and severe depression that can damage relationships and job or school performance. Those with the less severe form (Bipolar 2) have fewer marked mood shifts but they too can benefit from treatment.

People with bipolar disorder can suffer for years before their illness is properly diagnosed and treated. This may soon change, however, thanks to new research that analyzes the bipolar brain. The findings are leading to a better understanding of the cause of bipolar disorder.The development of biology-based diagnostic techniques that could identify the disorder early and provide insights into how to improve treatment.Currently, bipolar disorder cannot be identified biologically with a simple blood test or brain scan. Instead, a diagnosis is made primarily on the basis of symptoms discussed in the doctor’s office. The disorder often goes unrecognized as an illness for years, but once diagnosed many people with bipolar disorder can be treated with medication. Commonly doctors prescribe drugs that stabilize mood, such as lithium, along with drugs that ease depression.To help speed detection and improve treatment, scientists recently began to scrutinize the bipolar brain and uncover biological signs of the disorder. Some research reveals abnormalities in areas that govern emotions. For example, techniques that imaged the brain indicated that emotional areas deep inside, known as the amygdala and hippocampus, can be smaller in both adolescents and adults with bipolar disorder. This suggests that brain changes are an early feature of the disorder. Other studies that examined brain anatomy and brain activity indicate that those with bipolar disorder can have abnormalities in areas toward the front of the brain that process emotions, including the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate. In other work, researchers uncovered some early insight into the roots of these abnormalities by studying genes. Our genes guide the production of proteins that run brain development and function. One study found evidence that a variation of gene, known as BDNF, which produces a factor involved in the development of brain structures like the ones found to be abnormal in bipolar disorder, may increase a person’s risk of developing the illness. Researchers also are examining possible links to many other genes involved in cell survival and development. With continued study, this research may help scientists find ways to detect bipolar disorder earlier and intervene earlier. For example, researchers imagine that in the future they will be able to develop a simple brain scan that identifies suspect brain alterations or devise a blood test that signals that brain changes exist. And perhaps once the genes behind the disorder are clarified, a test could be developed to detect them early.The discoveries surrounding the biological contributors of bipolar disorder also highlight where to focus new treatment development and could help doctors modify existing therapy regimens to match an individual’s particular abnormality. In the end, the research may translate into more peaceful days and longer lives for many.

Research reveals that people with bipolar disorder can harbor abnormalities in brain areas that govern emotions, including the orbitofrontal cortex, which lies behind the eyes and aids complex emotional thinking. In one imaging study, researchers examined brain activity while people with bipolar disorder and healthy individuals conducted a task that tests thinking ability. In general, the activity in the area was abnormal in bipolar patients compared to the healthy participants. Researchers also found that when patients were experiencing depression the activity was abnormally high, shown by the yellow and red coloring at the top of the left brain image. When patients were experiencing manic highs the activity was abnormally low, shown by the blue and purple coloring in the right brain image.

For any of you going to Court over the finances of your divorce, consideration of your fitness to work as a Bipolar sufferer will be a top priority.

80% of people with mental health disabilities are unemployed. This doesn’t mean that 80% are unemployable; it means that:

• there are many employers (4 out of 10) who won’t employ someone with a mental health illness
• there are insufficient flexible working opportunities for those who suffer to enable them to work in a way that they can manage their condition effectively
• there are those who are so discouraged by their condition that they “self stigmatise” ie they believe so strongly that nobody will want them, that they don’t even apply for work
• there are those who are worried that, if they apply for work, they will lose their incapacity benefit
• there are many who worry that they will be subjected to hostile/negative/unpleasantness in the workplace if colleagues find out that they have a mental health illness.

If you are fighting with your exspouse/partner over finances, they are bound to argue that you (the Bipolar sufferer) could go out and get a job and support yourself and therefore you shouldn’t require ongoing support from your ex spouse/partner.

This is what my ex husband argued: because I am a qualified lawyer and used to work in a top 10 City law firm, I should be perfectly able to go back to such a highly paid environment and support myself and our three children and therefore he should not have to pay me any maintenance.

I argued that my “ability” to work and obtain highly paid employment, is an entirely separate issue to whether I will, in reality, be offered a job given my mental health background.

I argued that, given the 80% of unemployment amongst the mentally ill, it is unlikely that I will fall within the 20% who will get work at a high level. I might get low paid and low status work, but if I do, that is likely to be insufficient to enable me to support myself and my three children adequately in the lifestyle that they are used to (eg private schooling etc).

How can you determine these issues? Well, you need expert evidence ie an expert to write a report to the Court and then come to Court, if required, to give evidence and who is willing to be cross-examined on the evidence he/she gives.

Ideally, you have 2 experts: the first should be your treating psychiatrist/doctor who can give the Court his/her assessment of your ability to work. This will include:

• a description of your diagnosis eg Bipolar 1, Bipolar 2, rapid cycling Bipolar, cyclothymia, schizo – affective disorder etc
• an explanation of the effect that your diagnosis has on your ability to work eg levels of concentration, focus etc
• an explanation of which medication you are on and how this affects your ability to work eg does your medication make it difficult for you to wake up in the mornings? Does your medication make it harder for you to concentrate?
• an assessment of which types of work you might be able to undertake eg if stress is one of your triggers, would you be able to hold down a highly stressful job?
• What are your particular triggers? eg if noise is a trigger, how would commuting to and from work on a busy/noisy train/tube/motorway affect your ability to commute?
• your longer term ability to hold down a job
• your own ability to manage your illness eg do you recognise your triggers? Do you comply with your medication regime? Have you developed good coping strategies?

This expert report will be given to the Judge so that he/she can form a view of how your own particular illness affects you and how it will affect your ability to work.

This will help the Judge decide how likely it is that you will find work, maintain work and what level of work in terms of pay and status that you are likely to achieve.

The Judge can then base any capital distribution or maintenance levels with that knowledge in mind.

If the Judge is unaware of the discrimination issues that surround the employment of the mentally ill, then it is a good idea to submit to the Court some well researched papers on the subject. For these, Google “Professor Graham Thornicroft” and you will find some very good resources on how discrimination in the workplace affects the mentally ill.

A particularly good piece of information can be found in his book “Shunned”. You can obtain this from Amazon.

The Social exclusion part of the government’s website is also helpful. Here are some useful links:

www.library.nhs.uk/SpecialistLibrarySearch/Download.aspx?resID=213004

This above link is a paper called “Actions speak Louder” and you can download this using Acrobate.

Resources for investigating the issue of Social Exclusion of the mentally ill include:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/503876.stm

BBC news article on Social Exclusion of the mentally ill.

www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/Exclusion.html

www.ukcap.org/getheard/index.htm

www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/33473

If you Google “Social Exclusion government taskforce for mentally ill” you will find a whole load of material which will inform you about the stigma of mental illness in the workplace.

Any questions about any of this stuff, please send in your comments.

I want to know just who came up with the spectrum of “reason”, of “normal behaviour” of “normal thoughts”? Is it defined anywhere? And, if so, who evaluates it and to what benchmark? Does it change with society’s current “norms”?

Who says that my behaviour, thoughts and emotions are “normal” or not? And what gives any assessor of these the right/credentials to evaluate them and against what scale/spectrum? Who says that the mood swings experienced by someone with Bipolar are “abnormal”? Where’s their evidence?

I have just bought a book: “Mental Health Law policy and practice” by Peter Bartlett and Ralph Sandland, both Professors at Nottingham University. They open their book with this very subject i.e. who decides what the common language of “reason” is?:

“In the serene world of mental illness, modern man no longer communicates with the madman: on the one hand, the man of reason delegates the physician to madness, thereby authorizing a relation only through the abstract universality of disease; on the other, the man of madness communicates with society only by the intermediary of an equally abstract reason which is order, physical and moral constraint, the anonymous pressure of the group, the requirements of conformity.

As for a common language, there is no such thing; or rather, there is no such thing any longer; the constitution of madness as a mental illness, at the end of the eighteenth century, affords the evidence of a broken dialogue, posits the separation as already effected, and thrusts into oblivion all those stammered, imperfect words without fixed syntax in which the exchange between madness and reason was made.

The language of psychiatry, which is a monologue of reason about madness, has been established only on the basis of such a silence. “ Foucault, 1965: x – xi

Hear, hear Foucault. The fact that one person communicates (albeit imperfectly) their thoughts to another person (who “hears” what they are “able” to hear) who then perceives those thoughts to be markedly contrary to his/her own experience of the world, does not mean that the person communicating their thoughts has “lost their reason”.

Often people find it difficult to articulate what they are thinking, especially if they are not used to articulating their thoughts. They may describe feelings, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, observations in a clumsy, half – illuminating way such that the person receiving the information can’t decipher the exact meaning. This may then come across as lacking in reason. But are they right to then extrapolate from that incoherence the conclusion that the person has “lost their reason”, isn’t “normal”, has “lost their judgement”, isn’t perceiving the world as others perceive it.

The authors of the book state the following:

“If policy has developed through silencing the mad, if it is, as Foucault claims, a discourse of reason about unreason, it then tells us as much, or more, about the reasonable as the mad. For reason to articulate insanity, it must do it with reference to sanity, because this is the only way the border can be understood.

In this way, mental health law and policy can be seen as a mirror, in which we see our own values reflected.”

Therefore, the people making mental health law and policy are basing their policies and law on their own perceptions of reason and reality – how do they know that their view of “reason” is in fact acceptable and representative of “the norm”. Even if it is representative of “the norm”, is “the norm” acceptable?

On the basis of “the norm” being the reason of the majority of people, we would still have black people confined to slavery, women would not be able to vote and it would be acceptable for a husband to rape his wife (a crime which until the 1980’s was not considered to be a crime; or at least, it wasn’t recognised as a crime in any of the criminal law statutes or cases).

Sooner or later, these “norms” have to be challenged and any anomolies resolved. It is my intention to challenge the ideas that law makers and policy makers have about mental illness and I will start in relation to Family Law.

Michel Foucault  (October 15, 1926 – June 25, 1984) was a French philosopher, historian and socialogist. He held a chair at the College de France and taught at the University of California, Berkeley. 

Michel Foucault is best known for his critical studies of various social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine, the human sciences, and the prison system. Foucault’s work on power, and the relationships among power, knowledge, and discourse, has been widely discussed and applied.

As my readers will know, I’m an English mother with Bipolar who also happens to be a lawyer, but I’m NOT a family or mental health lawyer. Nor am I an expert in American Family law or mental health law. However, I am continuing to research much of the law governing mental health in the context of parenting children whilst suffering from Bipolar.

As such, whenever I find some useful information, I shall post it on the site and hopefully, the site will become increasingly informative and useful as a source of knowledge sharing with other sufferers and their families.

So here goes: Wikepedia’s explanation of the Californian Welfare and Institutions Code:

5150 is a section of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed a danger to himself, herself, and/or others^[1] and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration. When used as a term, 5150 can informally refer to the person being confined or to the declaration itself.

//

 The process

Confinement under section 5150 lasts for up to 72 hours from the time the declaration is written. WIC 5151 requires an assessment prior to admission to the facility in order .. to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention. During the period of confinement a confined individual is evaluated by a mental health professional to determine if a psychiatric admission is warranted. Confinement and evaluation usually occurs in a county mental health hospital or in a designated Emergency Department. If the individual is then admitted to a psychiatric unit only a psychiatrist may rescind the 5150 and allow the client to either remain voluntarily or be discharged.

On or previous to the expiration of the 72 hours the psychiatrist must assess the client to see if they still meet criteria for hospitalization. If so the client may be offered a voluntary admission, if it is refused then another hold (the 5250) must be written to continue the involuntary confinement of the client. If the 72 hour timeframe has elapsed before the client is offered a voluntary admission or placed on the 5250 then the client must be immediately released.

A 5150 written by a peace officer is valid in any county in California, therefore a client could be moved from one county to another according to available resources. When written by a designated clinician the hold is only valid in that county. The designated clinician is also only able to write a 5150 while working in the facility they are employed at unless they work as part of a Psychiatric mobile response team.

Contesting the hold

The person under a 5150 hold has a limited ability to contest the legality of the hold. While the person has the right of demanding a writ of habeas corpus, it is up to the county public defender whether to file it or not. Since such a writ may take a day or two to file, the public defender usually chooses not to as the hold would expire before the anticipated court date.

 5150 criteria

The criteria for writing requires probable cause. This includes danger to self, danger to others together with some indication, prior to the administering of the hold, of symptoms of a mental disorder, and/or grave disability – as noted below. The conditions must exist under the context of a mental illness and the person must be refusing psychiatric treatment.

1. Danger to self – the person must be an immediate threat to themselves, usually by being suicidal. Someone who is severely depressed and wishes to die would fall under this category.
2. Danger to others – the person must be an immediate threat to someone else. A person hearing voices telling them to kill someone would fall under this category.
3. Gravely disabled
   1. Adult – the person (over 18 years old) is unable to provide for their food, clothing, and/or shelter – and there is no indication that anyone is willing or able to assist them in procuring these needs. This does not necessarily mean homeless, as a homeless person who is able to seek housing (even in a temporary shelter) when weather demands it would not fall under this category.
   2. Minor – the person (under 18 years old) is unable to provide for their food, clothing, and/or shelter – even if these are supplied directly.
4. Mental disorder Undefined by statute or regulation. On page 14 of the LA County LPS Designation Manual it is stated that The initiator must be able to articulate behavioral symptoms of a mental disorder either temporary or prolonged (People v. Triplett,(1983) 144 Cal. App. 3d 283.)

Required documentation

There are two legal documents, the 5150 application itself and the patient advisement form (5157(c)). The LA County LPS Designation Manual stipulates that, prior to the completion of the 5150 application, the initiator must conduct and document a face-to-face interview with the patient. On the 5150 application, the initiator is required to ..give sufficiently detailed information to support the belief that the person for whom the is in fact a danger to others, a danger to himself/herself and/or gravely disabled. The 5150 Application contains the words …as a result of a mental disorder.. but does not stipulate documentation of evidence of ..behavioral symptoms of a mental disorder….., defined in People v. Triplett (1983) as a necessary part of probable cause. The 5150 Application requests no explicit documentation of the required face-to-face interview.

 Patient rights while under section 5150

Patients admitted under section 5150 retain all rights under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. With the exception of being able to freely leave the facility they are placed in, patients have all rights accorded to a voluntarily admitted client. This includes the rights to:

• humane care
• religious freedom and practice
• participate in publicly supported education
• be free from abuse or neglect
• refuse medications except in emergency situations where danger to life is present; or by court order where the patient is found to lack the capacity to give or refuse informed consent via either a Riese hearing or via conservatorship.
• wear their own clothes
• visitors
• writing materials (including sending mail though they may be charged for postage)
• safe storage and access to their personal property
• have access to private phone conversations (though may be responsible for toll charges)
• speak with a Patient’s Rights Advocate
• go outside for exercise and leisure (usually in a fenced area)
• access their money in amounts for small purchases (vending machine, etc.)
• be free from discrimination

Good cause

Denying any of the patient’s rights requires good cause. Good cause being defined as the belief of the professional in charge of care for the client that the specific right would cause:

1. a danger to self or others; or
2. a serious infringement on the rights of others; or
3. serious damage to the facility;

and that there is no less restrictive measure that would protect against those occurrences.

Patient rights can not be denied as a condition of admission nor as part of a treatment plan such as being labeled a privilege or as punishment. Any time a right is denied under good cause it must be documented in the patient’s medical record and explained to the patient. The denial must be reviewed regularly and must be removed once good cause no longer exists.

References

1. ^ 5150 and You. Retrieved on October 3, 2006.Frequently asked questions about section 5150 at the Fresno County, California, Human Services System.

• (Revised April 2004) Rights for Individuals in Mental Health Facilities. California Department of Mental Health. 

External links

• California Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 5150-5157
• contrast/compare with Rogers Law, concerning involuntary treatment/commitment in Massachusetts
• Los Angeles County LPS Designation Manual. This is a guide to procedures only. Accepted practice may vary significantly from these guidelines.

I will endeavour to comment on these pieces of legislation once I have researched them further. In the meantime, if any of you wish to add your own comments or experience relating to the Californian Code, please do so so that we can all share our knowledge.

 Thanks.

Well, it’s been about 10 weeks (its now June 07) I think since I last told you all what was happening so here it is:

I had to leave the home in April and the kids had to stay there with their father and, of course, the full time nanny who is now looking after them for the most part. Why did I have to leave? Well, because the judge had already made her mind up even before the court hearing started. She came into the court room, sat down and announced that she HADN’T HAD TIME TO READ THE COURT PAPERS of the occupation order application and supporting statements from my husband and myself. She simply said very impatiently that I should leave because obviously the children were suffering “significant harm” by my presence. Prove it? She felt she didn’t need proof – she said it was “common sense”…..( I wonder if there has ever been a legal decision which has been based on “common sense” before? My own view about “common sense” is that it’s not very common……………Moreover, I am not aware that the yardstick for evidential proof is “common sense”. I thought it had to be proven in some way, either objectively by reference to objective criteria or subjective according to a set of guidelines. But maybe my own legal training needs to be questioned; I shall go and read my text books on “evidence” again………I’ll start at the subject index “common sense”……….

My husband had issued an Application for an Occupation Order ie a Court Order to force me to leave the family home (jointly owned). My lawyers and I had spent a fair amount of time (and I had spent in the region of £10k in fees) putting together my witness statement defending my right to stay in my own home and to stay living with my children until our house was sold and my husband and I could go our separate ways.

My husband had sought fit to insist that the court issue an Occupation Order to get me out of the family home on the basis that my continuing presence in the home was causing the children to suffer “significant harm”. (See the separate post on the meaning of “significant harm”).

I naively thought that the concept of “significant harm” might be provable in some objective manner but no, it’s not. I argued with my lawyers about this insisting that there must be some objective test of significant harm and was incredulous when they informed me that there is no objective evidence which is called for when deciding whether or not the children have suffered “significant harm”. It’s obvious apparently – common sense. Really?? Let’s just consider that statement for a minute: how does anyone determine what is “significant”? How does anyone determine what amounts to “harm”? What is the “cause” of the harm? How do you measure “cause and effect” of behaviour vs emotional/pyschological “harm”?

If you ask a person those questions and compare their answer with the answer from another person, would the answer be the same? Probably not. Therefore is the concept subjective or objective? If there is a high chance that the answer would be subjective, then surely it is not just to allow one person to determine the answer. Surely there should be at least a panel of three or maybe a proper jury of 10? At least that would introduce an element of objectivity.

Surely if the legislation sets out a concept such as “significant harm” there should be a benchmark against which to measure the “harm” being suffered? Is it a child’s behaviour now as against their behaviour before the divorce? Is it how they are achieving in school? Is it whether they are sleeping at night? Is it how they are progressing developmentally in comparison with their peers?

Who is able to answer these questions? Is it the parents? Is it the teachers? Is it the neighbours, family, other witnesses?

Well, read the legislation: it’s so woolly that it’s fraught with room for argument. There are no clear guidelines and, what’s worse, there is no mechanism set out for proving that “significant harm” has been suffered.

Surely this has to be proved using objective and professionally skilled and qualified experts in the field of child psychology and development? Surely????

If this was a case on aeronautics, or building defects or fraud or a criminal case, experts would be used to determine issues of evidence that are beyond the skill and level of expertise that a normal judge should be expected to show. What judge is a child psychologist?

This judge isn’t and yet she is allowed to determine whether or not a child is suffering “significant harm”- based on what? Based on her experience as a family lawyer? That experience doesn’t give her the skill or level of knowledge of how children develop, how they suffer emotionally or psychologically? She is simply applying the law to a set of facts. That is what a lawyer does and that is what they are paid to do. They are NOT psychologists nor should they attempt to be. They should use their professional judgement and recognise and accept that they should seek expert advice from experts in a particular field when their own expertise is limited.

A FAMILY JUDGE IS NOT A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST and should not be taking on the role of determining whether or not a child, whom they have never met nor heard evidence from, is suffering psychologically or emotionally. To do so amounts to pure “guess work” on their part or from being persuaded by one or other equally unqualified and inexperienced witnesses to the case.

This lack of  expert evidence to resolve this issue amounts to an extreme gap in the legislation and one which I am going to lobby to change.

I asked my barrister to insist that the judge should have to obtain some objective evidence before determing for herself that the children are suffering significant harm and he duly argued with the judge about how this concept was going to be proved. The judge sat down and said: “I haven’t had time to read the papers”. I was stunned: here we were, all in court: me and my solicitor and barrister, my husband and his solicitor and barrister and the judge and all the ushers – all of whom were there to decide whether or not I could continue to live in my own home AND  SHE HADN’T HAD TIME TO READ THE PAPERS OF THE CASE…………..

Right, I see. That’s ok then. We’ll all just spend a huge amount of time, energy, stress and money preparing our defence and the judge can’t find the time to read the case papers. Mmmmm.

However, she said that she didn’t need to read any more papers, after all she observed that she had sat through a 10 day hearing of the case and had heard all the evidence she needed to be able to make up her mind and it was clear to her that the children would OBVIOUSLY be suffering harm if my husband and I continued to live together under the same roof as we had done for the past 18 months of the horrendously acrimonious split. Therefore I should leave. Simple.

What about the children? Won’t they suffer “significant harm” if their mother is suddenly forced to leave and has no home to go to? Won’t they suffer from having a complete stranger move in and start looking after them FULL-TIME as their new full time nanny? A person they have never met, have no idea who she is but will now be their surrogate mother? Won’t they suffer from not knowing where they will be going when they are living with their mother as she does not have a home to go to? Won’t they suffer if their mother has a relapse in her health because of the stress of having to leave her home with no income and no job and no home to go to?

Apparently not. Apparently any situation for them would be preferable to the one they were in where their mother and father were living under the same roof arguing.

Now, I can fully understand that no child wants to hear their parents arguing – it’s horrendous there’s no doubt and I experienced that as a child myself. But equally, many couples live together for years and years and argue without ever splitting up. Should those parents be forced to split because they are causing their children “significant harm”? If they are allowed to continue living together arguing and arguing and the children are suffering as a result, are they guilty of causing their children “significant harm”. If so, what is done about it by the law? Nothing.

If these parents are not forced to split up for the benefit of their children, why was I forced to leave? I can only surmise that I am forced to leave because my husband and I have decided that we should get divorced and therefore one of us has to go. The judge decided the children would be the subject of a SHARED RESIDENCY ORDER but are to live with their dad during the week.

Now, my husband and I both own the house. We both were living there. He has a job and an income and no health problem. I have no income, no job and Bipolar Disorder. Who has to go?

 To me there is no logic in that argume: how can any person determine whether or not a child is suffering more harm from staying in a home where the parents are arguing than the harm suffered from forcibly removing their mother?

It strikes me that the only people who are truly able to judge the harm being suffered by the child is (a) the child and (b) a child psychologist. The people who are least able to judge the harm are (a) the parties’ respective lawyers and (b) the judge who has never met the children. Both sets of lawyers and the judge are hearing highly subjective views from me and my husband who both perceive the situation entirely differently.

The Judge decided however that she is able to determine the question of how much harm a child is suffering purely on the evidence of the parents and of the other witnesses and no expert evidence is required. Now the problem with this view is that of the quality of the evidence which is as follows:

1. The husband’s witnesses – all highly subjective and non of them professionally qualified to determine a child’s psychological state.

2. The wife’s witnesses – equally as subjective and not professionally qualified.

3. Expert witnesses who are experts in the wife’s psychological state and not in the children’s psychological state.

4. The CAFCASS officer whose report the judge dismissed as being chronically under-researched.

So just WHO is able to say how the children are suffering or feeling???????????????????

If you ask the children, they would tell you that they want their mum to stay and that they don’t want a nanny looking after them. They would also tell you that they hate the arguing. Fair enough if you ask me. So what’s the solution?

According to the judge, the solution is to insist that I leave, regardless of where I go. Nowhere in the family law legislation does it provide that the children’s feelings and views should be heard by a qualified child psychologist. Why on earth not? Why does the law think that family members, teachers, neighbours etc would know better than a child psychologist as to how arguing is affecting a child? Family members are likely to be highly subjective and biased and not necessarily be able to see “the woods for the trees”. Surely a psychologist would be the most reliable source of evidence for a court: objective, skilled, experienced and professional.

This just isn’t the case. The legislation doesn’t provide for this. It leaves the entire decision making up to the judge with no recommendations/guidelines as to the use of a qualified child psychologist.

Extraordinary isn’t it? I have to keep repeating here that I am a lawyer. I am not a qualified child psychologist. The judge is a lawyer, she is not a qualified child psychologist. So how can she make that assessment????

Do please comment: What do you think? Should a judge be made to rely on a child psychology report rather than on his/her own knowledge of child psychology? 

DIGG This
A Mum First and Foremost
[digg=http://digg.com/health/Bipolar_Mother_loses_Children_in_Vicious_Custody_Battle_at_the_High_Court]

The Story:

This is a story of a Bipolar mother who has been in a custody battle over her three children due to her Bipolar. This is the result of my ex-husband’s application to the Court for an Sole Residency Order seeking an Order that he alone should look after the children with me only having supervised “contact” with them. The reason cited for his application is that I am “incapable” of looking after the children due to my Bipolar.His application asked for me to only have supervised contact with them.

A 17 month battle ensued resulting in a 10 day hearing in the High Court in the Royal Courts of Justice. Despite hearing evidence from 3 experts in psychiatry and psychology  all of whom gave evidence to the Judge that I am perfectly capable of looking after the children, the Judge decided that, because of my Bipolar, I should not be allowed to be the main carer of the children. She ordered that the children should be the subject of a Shared Residency Order ie that their care should be shared between me and their father with  them having homes with both of us. Legally, that puts us both on equal footing when it comes to our legal parenting rights. However, the Judge decided that their main carer should be their father on the basis that he doesn’t have the illness and can therefore provide greater stability than I can. He was not put through any psychological or psychiatric assessment to determine whether he was capable, despite the fact that he has been violent to both me and the children. The children’s nanny has had not psychiatric or psychological testing and yet has been allowed to take over their care in preference to me. Their main carer is therefore my husband’s nanny as, the reality is, that he is at work most of the time that he should be there looking after them. He heads up a City law firm litigation department (he’s an ex barrister) and is therefore rarely at home before their bed time.

I was thrown out of our marital home by my Husband who succesfully applied for an Occupation Order, claiming that my presence in the house was causing “significant harm” to the children. The Judge who heard this application was the same judge who heard the Children’s Act custody dispute. She came into court saying that she hadn’t had time to read the papers for the application but that she didn’t need to as it was obvious that my staying at the home would damage the children. She sought to evict me without consideration as to my financial means. I had no capital with which to buy or rent another home until the matrimonial home was sold. My husband was fighting my maintenance claim saying he couldn’t afford to pay me any maintenance out of his £450,000 earnings. My work was not producing enough income to fund a rented property. She gave no consideration for the effect that evicting me from my home was going to have on me and my mental health.

I was given 2 days to pack all my stuff and leave. I had nowhere to go other than to my brother’s house. I have been living there for 18 months in his spare bedroom where me and my three children have to share a bed when they come to stay with me. Yet the Shared Residency Order means that the children are to have HOMES with both me and my husband. I was specifically advised that, under the Matrimonial Homes Act, there would be no inequality between my financial situation for me and the kids when they are with me and those of my husband when the kids are with him.

The reality is stark. I am without my own home at all whilst my husband continues to live in our 7 bedroomed matrimonial home. He has been left with 80% of his salary whilst I have been awarded 20% of his salary as maintenance for me and the children. This maintenance will stop in 5 years time. I have incurred debts of £450,000 which has now bankrupted me given the fall in the housing market. I have no capital left with which to buy a home for the children.

The judge considers all this to be a fair outcome!

My children’s thoughts and feelings:

The children’s thoughts and feelings were simply not taken into account. They did not give direct evidence to the Judge either orally or verbally – a point I discuss further below. They are devastated by the decision and miss me terribly. They do not understand the Judge’s contention that I am not well enough to look after them nor do they agree – they all think that I am a good mother who is perfectly able to parent them and indeed they desperately want me to be parenting them far more regularly. My daughter wants to come and live with me and yet no-one is listening to her; she has resigned herself to the fact that, eventually, she will be able to “vote with her feet” and that eventually her view will count.

They cannot understand why they are not allowed to see their mummy very often and don’t understand why nobody has listened to what they want. They keep telling me that they want to live with me and that they are heartbroken without me. My youngest said “Mummy, there’s no love in my heart when you’re not here with me”. She is regularly having nightmares and is wetting and soiling herself regularly. She is convinced that I no longer love her despite all my assurances that I do. She’s clingy and demands my constant attention when I am with her. Relatives observing her say that she is clearly suffering. My son (8) tells me he is often crying himself to sleep and now talks to me and others through his favourite soft toy. He follows me everywhere, (even into the loo!), not letting me out of his sight. I have nicknamed him “my little shadow”. He cries on the car journey to drop him back to his father, pleading with me not to let him take him away from me. My eldest child, 10 , still asks to sleep in bed with me when she is with me and cuddles me for dear life. She keeps asking when the Court will listen to her views and when she is allowed to “vote with her feet”. She has asked me to get her her own solicitor so that she can be listened to.

They all need their mummy – that much is clear. They love me regardless of my condition and tell me that they don’t believe that I am doing anything wrong to them or harming them in any way. They simply cannot understand it all.

Me and my Bipolar:

I was the children’s main carer for the 9 years leading up to this Judgement, some of this time I was the sole carer at home, some of the time I had nanny help.

I suffer from Bipolar 2 and have therefore never experienced a manic episode. I do not suffer from delusions,nor have I ever been psychotic. I am told that I have the mildest form of Bipolar and it is on the borderline of a diagnosis which is why it went undiagnosed for 16 years!

I have only been in hospital twice, both of which were voluntary admissions – I have never been sectioned. The first admission was for depression, during which time I was diagnosed with depression only. The second time was because the psychiatrist changed his diagnosis to Bipolar and wanted me to be in hospital for the introduction of Lamotrigine and because he was concerned that I might be going hypomanic on the anti-depressants. I was not manic according to me and to the admission notes.

I have never abused the children. I have no substance abuse problems, nor have I ever had any substance abuse problems) and don’t even smoke. I have no criminal record. I have a full, clean driving licence and have never been convicted of any driving offences.

I am fully medication compliant and my condition is fully stable with no relapses since I started on medication 4 years ago. I have been through 2 years of intensive Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (the recommended treatment for Bipolar). During the 6 years leading up to my hospitalisation and diagnosis, I was the children’s main carer and was being their mum without being on any medication or treatment as I hadn’t yet been diagnosed. Yet, I was still managing to look after them. The children were thriving at school with good school reports and the schools reported them to be well-adjusted, highly intelligent, popular, lovely children.

I have experienced 4 depressive episodes (no manic ones) since I was 22 (I’m now in my 40s), each of which followed a major life trauma. I experienced the first during my degree – I still graduated with an honours degree, went through my military training at Sandhurst, became an Army officer and rowed for my university, winning the National Polytechnic rowing regatta, so the depression didn’t hamper my functioning. I experienced my second episode at Law school, but still graduated and became a lawyer. I experienced my 3rd after the birth of my second child, but still carried on parenting my two children (aged 2 and newborn) whilst managing my third pregnancy whilst my son was only 6 months old. During this time, I oversaw the building works in our house and worked part-time.

My fourth episode resulted in my (voluntary) admission to hospital. I had three children in three years, my two year old son developed diabetes, I was working and we had knocked down our house and I was overseeing the rebuilding works. My husband had become physically violent towards me and our marriage was crumbling and high in conflict with a husband who was rarely at home. When he was at home, he was emotionally and psychologically abusive for quite a lot of the time. He was highly critical of my parenting and of my abilities as a wife and housewife – I rarely got anything right in his eyes. I collapsed from the pressure of it all.

I tell you the following about myself only to give you an idea of what I have managed to achieve during my illness when I wasn’t even diagnosed and was on no medication. These achievements did not seem to carry much weight for the Judge and did not convince her that I was able to lead a full, productive life and be competent.

I am a qualified lawyer and still manage to work. I am a regular speaker at conferences, have been a speaker on the Radio, and have had many articles published in both the broadsheets and journals. I am an ex Territorial Army officer, having passed through Sandhurst military academy and was in the TA for over 9 years, both in command roles and in organisational roles. I am a qualified mountain expedition leader, have won sailing races with the Army, ski, run, cycle and have led an expedition team across the Yukon in Canada, leading them through 5 weeks of arduous terrain on a 250 mile trek. I gained my legal qualifications by doing a distance learning course of a law degree whilst working full time.

I have many long-standing friends, all of whom say that I have never exhibited any form of mania, nor any substantial depressive symptoms. None of them could believe that I have been given this diagnosis.

Discrimination, prejudice, ignorance and Human Rights and the Law

I will write separately in detail about the law on the Children’s Act,the Disability Discrimination Act, the Human Rights Act, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the other pieces of legislation. Being a lawyer I can strive to effect a change in the legislation. This will take a great deal of time and energy but I feel strongly that the law is not serving the interests of the children where a parent suffering from an illness is deemed incapable. The law I discuss here is my understanding and interpretation of it; I may be challenged on this but it is my view currently.

I believe that this whole situation and judgement is as a result of ignorance and a misunderstanding of the complexities of the condition; in particular the fact that there is an entire spectrum of manifestations of the condition from the extremely mild (as in my case) to the extremely severe. There is also an ignorance of the fact that there are two types of Bipolar: Bipolar 1 which is a mix of mania and mild depression compared to Bipolar 2 which is only hypomania but more severe depression. Clearly, the manifestations of these two types of the illness are very different and result in very different sets of behaviours of the individual sufferer and therefore the effect that this has on the family and especially the children.

Discrimination:

I also think that this case falls within the realm of mental health discrimination, prejudice and stigma by the Judge, my exhusband and his witnesses. There is still a high level of prejudice surrounding mental health conditions which is pervasive throughout our society and I aim, through this blog and my legal background and skills (I am a qualified lawyer), to fight it and challenge it through both the court system and the media.

I am fighting this issue as I now know that I am, unfortunately, one of many parents with this condition who is suffering from this kind of prejudice and losing custody of their children as a result. There are now many stories both on this blog and sent to me through my private email, which are heart-rending stories of parents having their children taken away from them as a result of their mental illness. Clearly, some parents are not well and struggle to find the right medication to stabilise their condition, some have substance abuse problems and some have such a severe form of the illness that they would find it very difficult to be a full time parent. However, there are many, many others who have managed to stabilise their condition such that it no longer impacts their day to day life in a debilitating way and these parents should not have their children taken away from them simply because they have a diagnosis of a condition which is not of their making, is not “their attitude, fault or fundamental flaw of personality” but is simply a disease which they are extremely unfortunate to have got.

There are parents with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, alzheimers, paralysis, Down’s syndrome, Autism or any other illness which can be debilitating either physically hampering the way that they can parent their children or emotionally/psychologically debilitating, yet do these parents have their children taken away from them because they are ill? There are parents who have alcohol and drug problems yet these parents don’t usually have their children taken away from them. Why should people with mental health problems be deemed to be automatically more incapable of parenting their children than these other sufferers?

My son has Type 1 diabetes (a form which is NOT the result of a poor diet), and I witness his extreme fluctuations in mood and functioning. When his blood sugar levels fluctuate, his mood fluctuates: he can become aggressive, irritable, bad-tempered, very fatigued, have headaches, feels nauseus, can’t concentrate, and at times can’t function at all. All this happens on a daily basis and yet how many diabetics have their children taken away from them on the basis that they are “incapable” of looking after their children?

They don’t, because every one would argue that that would be discriminatory and unnecessary. And yet it is allowed to happen to the mentally ill.

The United Nations Convention for the Rights of A Child.

This states clearly that all children have the right to be have their voice heard. Yet the Judge did not hear my children’s opinions at all. They did not give evidence either orally or in writing. They were deemed to be “too young” and yet there is no age stipulation in the legislation. It simply gives guidance that evidence of children will be taken into account if they are deemed to be sufficiently mature enough to understand the issues involved. What does that mean? Who makes that assessment? Who funds the children’s separate legal representation? A CAFCASS officer was the only person who heard what the children had to say.

CAFCASS: The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

Apparently, the Court case was all about what was in the best interests of the children. Yet my children were interviewed by CAFCASS on only 1 occasion for approximately 50 minutes. They gave evidence to the CAFCASS officer that they want their mummy. My youngest daughter told CAFCASS that she wanted to live with me, my son said he wanted to live with both of us and my eldest daughter said she wanted to live with me but see a lot of her father. CAFCASS did not report this properly and there is no transcript taken of the interview so I cannot prove what I heard the children say when I was in the room with them when they said it. It is my word against the CAFCASS officer’s report.

The CAFCASS report was, in the judge’s own words “appalling” and highly deficient in its thoroughness and findings yet the proceedings continued, despite the fact that the Report was the only truly objective evidence on what the children wanted. The judge told the CAFCASS officer that it was the most depressing example of how badly a CAFCASS investigation could go, yet it was still admitted as evidence. He didn’t even interview the schools or my new partner or come to the home to see if the allegations of my disgusting housewifery were true.

The Judge, accountability and Appeals

Astonishingly, a Judge is exempt from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act when acting in their judicial capacity! I simply do not understand why a Judge should be exempt from being held to be potentially discriminatory and held accountable for that bias. I am told also that I cannot appeal this decision as there are only 2 grounds for appeal:

1. That the Judge misapplied the law: well, she didn’t because the Children’s Act is entirely silent on the point of how a Judge should assess a parent’s capability or indeed a parent suffering with mental health issues.

2. That the Judge exercised her “judicial discretion” in such a way that no other judge would have exercised it in that way!. Clearly, an individual’s subjective discretion is such a nebulous concept that it is extremely difficult to criticise it. I was also advised that judges very rarely criticise another judge’s exercise of this judicial discretion. I find this an extraordinary protection to afford judges.

You also have to have leave to appeal and this leave has to be sought from the Judge herself. In other words, the judge who made the decision that you wish to appeal, has to agree that you can appeal it! She has reserved the case to herself too, which means that if I wish to bring a fresh application under the Children’s Act for the residency issue to be re-evaluated, I will get the same Judge!

I simply fail to see how this is justice or how it prevents miscarriages of justice from happening as there seems to be little room for challenging the decisions of the judges.

Human Rights

There are also Human Rights issues in all of this. There has, in my view, been a breach of various articles in the Human Rights Act including a breach of privacy, a breach of my right to a family life and a unfair trial.

Breach of privacy:

I was ordered to make a full disclosure of ALL my medical notes, both in patient and out patient and regardless of whether they pertained to my condition. They were also allowed to see ALL my psychology session notes. My computer was gone through by my husband as were all my mobile phone calls and texts and he was permitted to give evidence on the findings of his investigations. He had me followed by a private investigator.

Right to a fair trail

Whilst all of my medical history was obtained and given in evidence, none of his medical notes had to be disclosed, nor his notes from his psychology sessions that he had been having. No medical reports were conducted on him. This meant that the Judge heard all about my medical history and nothing about his.

I spent a week listening to my medical notes being taken to pieces by his barrister: excerpts from my psychology sessions, from my psychiatric assessments, from my previous medical history.I was absolutely destroyed as a person and as a mother by my husband, his witnesses and his barrister. I spent an entire week not being allowed to speak at all but having to  listen to my exhusband’s barrister ask his witnesses to explain certain behaviours and thoughts and emotions that I had as though I was completely invisible and as though they were able to understand what was going on in my head. It was deeply humiliating and degrading and very largely untrue and exaggerated. I then endured 3 days of cross-examination by a barrister who bullied and humiliated and taunted me in the most disgraceful manner about my illness, my behaviour and my emotional and psychological state. His entire aim was to make me seem like a complete danger to myself, to my children, to claim that I had a fundamental personality disorder despite having been told by the experts that I did not suffer from any personality disorder. My whole inside of my mind was taken to pieces by people who knew nothing about my illness and yet claimed that they “knew” me well enough to give evidence about my condition.

My husband’s legal team knew that the only way to ‘convince the Judge that I was the incapable, “mad” wife and mother that he said I was, was to try to focus on the period running up to and following on from my hospital admission and to assert that this was the norm. This he did with devastating success. He was able to focus the Judges attention away from all the years of my parenting prior to admission (ie 6 years) and only focus on the 4 months leading up to my admission and the 12 months following it.

I asked my legal team to include all his own bad behaviour but I was advised that we shouldn’t “sink to his level”.His violence towards me resulted in the police being called out to our home, yet no police records were brought into the trial. His drug taking in the past was not brought up, nor was his visits to places he shouldn’t have been visiting. None of this was considered important in terms of assessing his own personality and fitness to parent.

The witnesses were allowed to give evidence which was outside their realm of expertise ie they were not psychiatrists or psychologists and yet they were allowed to give evidence on my state of mind, on my personality and behaviour and were allowed to contend that I was mentally ill and that I had a personality disorder.

Law on expert evidence

The law on evidence is usually that no witness is allowed to give “expert evidence” ie evidence which should only be given by an expert in their field. So, for example, in a hearing on negligence of a construction of a building, a lay person cannot give evidence on whether or not the building had been constructed properly or not as they are not experts in construction. Yet, in a case involving Bipolar, the witnesses were allowed to give evidence on my state of mind, on my emotional background and on my thoughts. The Judge stated in her Judgement that the evidence of my neighbour was “particularly persuasive” yet my neighbour knows nothing about my condition.

This was therefore not a fair trial in my view. There was a huge disadvantage to me and none to him as he did not undergo any of the same scrutiny into his personality, his thoughts, behaviours etc yet mine were gone through in minute detail.

The Children’s Act – guidance on mentally ill parents

The Children’s Act is totally silent on the issue of parent’s with mental health conditions. It gives no guidance whatsoever to either the Judge or to CAFCASS on how to assess a parent’s capabilities when they are suffering from a mental health problem.

The Judge is given the sole responsibility for assessing any evidence. This is despite the fact that the Judge has no psychiatric or psychology training. They are given the jurisdiction to decide on issues which are beyond their training and experience.  Neither are they qualified in child psychology yet they are allowed to adjudicate on the effects of a particular parent’s illness on a child.

There is no panel of judges and experts; simply one judge.

How is this a “fair trial” and how is it justice?

“Personality v symptoms”

Because many of the symptoms of the illness can be mistaken for inherent personality traits, this is the main barrier to people being able to see the person for who they are rather than as a cluster of mistaken personality traits. The fatigue associated with depression is perceived as “laziness”, the lack of communication as “being anti-social”, the anxiety as being “over-sensitive” etc.

The mainstay of therapy for Bipolar consists of helping the sufferer develop “coping strategies” to stave off depression and minimise stress. Each sufferer has their own “triggers” ie stimuli, which will bring on either an episode of depression or an episode of mania/hypomania. During my therapy, I recognised that stress was a major trigger for me so I learnt to avoid taking on too much eg too much work, too much housework, too much organising social activities etc. I also learnt that a coping mechanism for stress was to go running, listen to music and do other pleasurable activities to bring balance back into my life.

During my recovery from my admission to hospital with depression, I was advised to “put my recovery first” for a while. This was interpretated by my husband and others as me being “selfish”, “self-absorbed” and not interested in being a wife and mother. I was “lazy”. On the one hand I was being advised by my medical team to put my recovery as the highest priority, on the other hand I was being criticised roundly by my husband and others for being “selfish” and “lazy”.  This contradiction was causing even further stress and was making my recovery harder. To have a husband who says, on the one hand that he understood and supported me and yet was highly critical when I implemented my coping strategies, was very difficult to cope with.

Noise is another trigger for me and London is extremely noisy and crowded. I therefore sought to regularly escape from the noise and crowds and travelled down to the seaside to get away. This was considered “unnecessary”, “self indulgent” “putting my own needs before my children’s”, “irresponsible”. The Judge decided that my reasons for doing this were “disingenous – as it was really for my socialising”. Yet this need to escape the noise and stress of my town was highlighted as a positive coping strategy by my psychologist.

All these symptoms and coping strategies were misinterpreted and I was condemned as a result.

My Bipolar Partner

My new partner has Bipolar 2 – a mild form like mine with no mania, delusions or psychosis but depressive episodes and anxiety. We met in hospital and formed a close bond as a result of our mutual understanding and empathy of our respective suffering and struggles to come to terms with our condition. He was diagnosed at the same time as me and he and I were the only people we each knew with the condition. We relied on each other during the first year of diagnosis to support, inform and listen to each other. He was discharged after the first week of my admission yet he came back to visit me, take me for walks and to the cinema, send me encouraging texts and so on. My husband visited me twice during my 5 weeks of hospitalisation, saying that he was “too busy” looking after the children and working to find the time to come and visit me. Not surprisingly, I came to rely increasingly on my new found fellow sufferer for support rather than my husband. After a year, I decided I wanted to leave my husband and be with someone who understood me and my condition and be fully accepting of the limitations it might impose on me.

My husband immediately issued proceedings against my new partner for a Prohibited Steps Order ie an application to the Court to prohibit my partner from seeing the children claiming that he was a danger to himself and a potential danger to the children. No supporting evidence was submitted with this application – it was based purely on my husband’s contention. This application was in place for 17 months before Judgement was handed down by the Judge.

My partner was prevented from seeing the children for this entire time simply based on  my exhusband’s  assertion that my partner had Bipolar and therefore shouldn’t be exposed to the children. He has no criminal record, no alcohol or drug abuse and has never hurt or threatened the children in any way. But he was still not allowed to see them until the Judge ruled that he could.  Unlike criminal law “innocent until proved guilty”, in these proceedings my partner was “ill and dangerous, until proved otherwise”.  This is despite the fact that the children adore him and kept asking why they couldn’t see him.

He went through hell in those 17 months; having been made a party to the proceedings he was required to be a witness and therefore be interviewed by my lawyer and prepare witness statements. He had to be examined by a psychiatrist to prepare an expert witness report, he was in the witness box for 2 days and his medical notes were trawled through in court. Unsurprisingly, he found this deeply humiliating, insulting and degrading. My husband’s barrister did everything he possibly could to depict him as unstable and incapable of being a parent.

When the Judge did hear the application, she threw it out on the basis that it was unfounded. Yet, during this 18 month period awaiting judgement, my partner was forbidden to see the children. This also meant that he was brought to trial where full disclosure of his own medical notes were ordered and he was cross examined for 2 days. He was again bullied and humiliated by the barrister cross examining him, and being told repeatedly that he was “unstable” and clearly not capable of parenting.

This was also used as a reason for my children not coming to live with me: the two of us together are clearly unable to care for children, according to the judge. But why?

• Neither of us has a criminal record.
• Neither of us has a drug or alcohol problem and never have had.
• Neither of us have abused the children in any way, nor threatened them.

Yet we are considered to not be capable of looking after the children, based on our mental health condition.

Kids need mums:

The vast majority of people believe that children need their mothers and not just on an ad hoc basis, but on a regular one with a great deal of love, nurturing and understanding of their needs on the mother’s part. The mother-child bond is fundamental, deep and irreplaceable. All the psychological studies into the importance of the role of the mother bears testament to my contentions. My children desperately want me; they are unutterably sad that I am forced to see them so rarely and are emotionally and psychologically suffering as a result.

This blog is my attempt to highlight that all parents, regardless of their illness, are needed by their children and that discrimination, ignorance, stigma and a lack of empathy is are all in the way of blocking those children from their parents.

Any comments, or offers of support would be greatly appreciated.

Social Bookmarks:

Technorati Tags: bipolar, affective, disorder, bipolar, discrimination, caffcass, child, custody, custody, depression, divorce, family, law, high, court, judicial, discretion, lobby, mental, health, illness, prejudice, antidepressants, childrens, act, mothers, rights, social, services,