http://blogs.ft.com/dearlucy/2007/07/i-think-my-bosshtml/

‘I think my boss may be bipolar’
July 10, 2007
I think my boss may be bipolar. He has two different modies: he’s either charging round, full of energy, making bold decisions or he’s paranoid, negative and bullying. In the “up” moods he’s stimulating, though it’s exhausting trying to keep up. The rest of the time he is paranoid and hostile. I’ve worked for him for two years and though I admire his talent and charisma I find his mood swings increasingly stressful. A couple of weeks ago I tried to broach the matter, but he looked as if he was about to have a coronary, so I shut up. Is there anything I can do? And if not, how can I insulate myself from the worst of his rages?

Investment banker, male, 36

July 10th, 2007 in Uncategorised | Permalink

19 Responses to “‘I think my boss may be bipolar’”
Comments
They say people join companies and leave managers – it is quite true. I am a victim of a similar situation, and the only way I have managed to survive is by telling myself that you cannot change a person – especially your boss – you can only change your reaction to him. Try being objective, impersonal, and to-the-point. Maintain a steady unfluctuating disposition, that should lessen the blow of the mood swings. But if despite all this you feel you cant be happy working this way, the world is big and it is full of opportunities

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pm | Report this comment

I had a boss who was very similar – she ended up driving me into depression. The situation may not get any better and this can have an impact on you.

The lack of rationality that you have to cope with can put enough mental pressure on you that it causes you to question your judgement and eventually you follow the mood swings.

That’s good for no-one.

It’s also worth condsidering your boss may have a drugs problem, this can have similar effects to mental illness.

Posted by: Aaron | July 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Report this comment

If your boss is really bipolar then he will exhibit those two different modes when dealing with senior colleagues and potential clients, as well as when dealing with a junior colleague. It doesn’t seem very likely that he would have lasted even two years in his job if he were paranoid and hostile with clients and his boss. It is perhaps more likely that he suffers from “kicking the dog” syndrome, bouts of which could be triggered by business disappointments. You are working in a deal driven organisation. Every mandate won or lost, every issue floated or pulled and every time that market prices do or don’t perform near expectations affect reputations, remuneration and prospects. Every potential deal is a one-off opportunity from which to wring every penny of fees and every nuance of status and ranking. It is not an environment where anyone is likely to appreciate a good loser so either be just as bad a loser as your boss or try to move to a longer term client relationship position.

Posted by: Ironybrew, 57, Retired, Male | July 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm | Report this comment

Insight meditation is the answer. I used to have an extremely nasty boss – the owner of a small company who would appear charming and charismatic to potential clients, yet would treat his employees with total contempt.

Insight meditation (vipassana meditation) is a practice that literally changes the way your brain functions so as you are no longer hurt or upset by the actions of others. The practice takes a couple of months until you see a clear benefit, but trust me, it really works.

Not only are you better able to deal with difficult people, you will also increase your concentration by a huge amount and therefore perform better at work, and enjoy your life more overall.

You will find over the course of a few months that everyday life becomes increasingly pleasurable as you become more open to experience and less reactive to changing moods.

The power it gives you to sit calmly smiling whilst some ego-maniac shouts at you, and see them unable to understand why you are totally unaffected by them is reason enough to do it, but actually, the greater strength will come from not even needing to.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am | Report this comment

I’m in a similar position, and I find that the manager’s moods are affecting me in a very negative way. In fact, his behavior is making me depressed and that is spilling over into my family life. My family and friends are highly aware of the change in me, as well as the cause, and they have urged me to quit the job in order to be away from this negative influence. I’m in the process of doing that right now, as there is no way to change that person or to tolerate his abusive persona much longer.

Posted by: Fed Up | July 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this comment

It’s not your responsibility to change your boss, except in the sense of finding a new one! Let the market decide the fate of dysfunctional supervisors…

Posted by: Vince Woodward | July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm | Report this comment

Sounds like a coke problem to me. Bipolar people aren’t paranoid and bullying in their down phases – they’re usually apathetic and totally non-functional. Take comfort by confiding in your colleagues – you can gain strength by having a laugh behind his back. Also be secure in the knowledge that in a couple more years he’ll crash and burn in a blaze of septum-ruptured glory – leaving you, the survivor, to the spoils.

Posted by: Female, PR, 25 | July 12th, 2007 at 8:19 am | Report this comment

Do we have the same boss? My tuppence worth from the City trenches: try to keep out of his way, try only to report success and watch the sits-vac ads.

Posted by: Craigoh | July 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm | Report this comment

I have also been in this situation – only afterwards did we realise it was cocaine abuse.

I gave away so much of my internal energy to a complete idiot – never again. I would now instantly switch off and cease to care if someone attempted to treat me like that.

Try alerting whoever is ultimately in charge to what is going on and that it may be drug-related.

Posted by: Lulu | July 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm | Report this comment

Worse if the boss is a woman. There are so many dysfunctional people in the City these days, that it is almost impossible to find the normal ones among us.

The best remedy is to find a new job and leave that “boss” to rot in his own mess…unless of course, you are a certified psychiatrist.

Posted by: Connie | July 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Report this comment

In my experience you may wish to consider notifying HR or go to Occupational Health. Don’t sit back and do nothing

This is more and more common in the city. Drugs and stress play a part in many cases.

Your boss may want to consider an assesment at Life Works , a treatment facility in Duke Street that runs an Intensive Evening Program for Impaired Professionals. I know Professionals who have had their lives turned around by this course.

Life Works is now regarded as the best treatment facility of its kind in the UK for getting high achievers back on the path.

They also have a residential facility in Surrey that is very highly regarded.

Posted by: Marco | July 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm | Report this comment

It is not just confined to the City. I experienced something similar in the public sector. It wasn’t drugs – my female boss simply had appalling inter-personal skills. Eventually (after I had left, her behaviour being a principle reason) she was moved to a different position where she wasn’t allowed to manage anyone. If you are confident your HR department will respond in an impartial manner, I’d speak to them.

Posted by: Kate | July 12th, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Report this comment

I had a similar situation with two male bosses simultaneously. The most senior of the two was an unfortunate combination of huge ego and massive insecurity; and was a divisive bully. It was so obvious to all members of my team, that our way of handling this was to bond over our derision and simply tolerate him.

The second of the two was my immediate boss and not as conspicuous. He was aggressive, and frequently phoned me out of hours or when I was on holiday to shout abuse at me because something hadn’t gone to plan, or he’d made a mistake and was seeking to pass blame. Just as my confidence was hitting rock bottom and I was thinking about quitting, I was headhunted and snapped up a much better offer at a better company. In my exit interview, I gave HR a no-holds-barred account of their behaviour. Shortly after I left, I bumped into my ex-immediate boss at a social event. He told me he was in AA and apologised for his treatment of me.

I agree with the comments already posted; it sounds as if your boss has a problem with substance abuse, or at least needs to seek help for a mental health issue. Speak to HR and keep your eye on the job market. Life is too short to tread on eggshells because of your boss’s inability to address his personal problems.

Posted by: Emma | July 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pm | Report this comment

I am battling the same issue. My boss is at least open minded enough that I have discussed the problem with her – which helped.
She blames the mood swings on a physical illness she suffers with, I am sure that is true to an extent but is not a full explanation.
I manage the problem by: (1) just accepting that her poor interpersonal skills mean mean she will never really understand why her unpredictable moods are a problem for us; and (2) in my head she lives in a ‘box’ and I only allow her out of that box in office hours – this has stopped me stressing about her out of office hours so makes the problem manageable. Interestingly this method was given to me by her boss who faces the same problem with her!
John, Banker

Posted by: John | July 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm | Report this comment

I had a boss like this once. We observed that on days when he was rushed and grabbed a few donuts and coffee from the catering cart, he was nasty as a bear, but on days when he’d had breakfast at home, he was the kindest, smartest boss one could have. After charting this for a couple of weeks, we asked him if he might perhaps have a blood sugar problem. It turned out that he was diabetic! With diet, exercise and insulin, he’s much more even-keeled most times.

Posted by: Jean Mansen | July 16th, 2007 at 6:24 am | Report this comment

Dear Lucy

My problem concerns a columnist on my daily newspaper. She is really funny and sends everything up very cleverly. But a couple of weeks ago, she started referring to people who behave strangely as “nutters”. I think this is a very unkind and dismissive way to talk about people who struggle courageously with bipolar disorder and/or mental illness. I’m worried that if I tell her what I think, she’ll dismiss me as politically correct or a member of the green ink brigade. I’m worried that she’ll start calling people poofs or darkies next. What should I do?

Yours sincerely

HR Consultant (I know! I know!)
Female 59

Posted by: Sally Phillips | August 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 am | Report this comment

I strongly suggest you leave your boss as quickly as possible. I worked for someone like that, too. The best thing he ever did was tell me that I’d been declared redundant. I left him have never looked back.

Seriously, life is far too short to work for a boss like yours. I’m sure you have enough to worry about and complete every day. The last thing you need is a boss suffering from a neurosis you cannot control — and he won’t either.

Posted by: Doug | August 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment

This sounds very familiar. I’m in a similar situation, and having always wondered why people got sick leave for “stress” (being a strong-minded individual) I now understand completely as I’m hating my own boss (who sounds like yours) and only staying here till I find something else. However, this might not be the best time to be looking for a job as an investment banker! Good luck – you’ll never change him, though, so unless you can somehow get rid of him you’ll have to put up with it or leave.

Posted by: analyst, female, 32 | August 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am | Report this comment

I just quit a job like yours. My boss has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder for 20+ yrs. I believe he uses his illness as a crutch for saying and doing whatever he feels at the time. He forgets half of what he says, he expects me to find his lost items and makes false accusations consistently. I know he drinks alcohol on occassion and doesn’t always take his meds. He doesn’t hesitate to ask if someone wore their stupid hat that day. One time I thought he was going to hit our receptionist. When he is up, he’s fun and full of spunk, when he’s down, he doesn’t care who’s way he get’s in. I’ve even heard him “yell” at his banker for using the work “closing” rather than the word “refinance”. He utilized my time for “lectures” and got mad when the work didn’t get done. I will never accept another position of this nature. I ended up on Paxil while I was there just to cope, my doctor advised I quit working for this man, which I eventually did.

Implications for discrimination by insurers against mental health problem

(Article from Equilibrium website) http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354

This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder
It has reluctantly been accepted by individuals suffering from bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness) and other mental health disorders that they face problems with regard to insurance of all types. Life insurance, personal income insurance and motor insurance are all affected by history of pre-existing ill health of any type but some policies specifically exclude cover for the de-novo development of ‘mental illness’ during the term of the policy, treating it differently from ‘physical disorders”, as well as imposing larger premiums or imposing other limitations on people with known mental health problems.

A court ruling on this issue in the US which is of considerable significance in this area has not been picked up at all by the popular media or the professional literature either within or outside of the US. Although not of direct legal impact outside of the US, we believe this case raises important issues about the way both employers and insurers deal with claims arising from the development of mental health problems. It also raises more general issues regarding differential stigma of ‘mental’ versus ‘physical’ ill health. This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder’.

The Case: Fitts v. Fannie Mae[1]
The ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involves an employee of a major mortgage company who developed bipolar disorder and whose employee disability insurance provider stopped paying disability benefits after 24 months on the grounds of bipolar disorder being a ‘mental illness’. The policy provided cover until the age of 65 for physical disability. Ms. Fitts had worked for the company for 13 years before she was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1995. The employee- Ms. Jane Fitts, successfully brought a case against both the employer and the insurer arguing that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall in the category “mental, emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type”. The court awarded “prejudgment interest on all sums due her and the costs of this action “.

Three pieces of evidence were presented to back this argument, and two expert witnesses, including Miss. Fitts’ own psychiatrist, provided evidence:
1. Ms. Fitts’ father and brother showed symptoms of the disorder and so a hereditary predisposition coupled with having the disorder showed the genetic nature of the disorder, which must therefore have a physical basis.
2. Brain scans of Ms. Fitts showed excessive age-controlled atrophy of the left parietal lobe and abnormal wave activity on the left side of the brain.
3. Ms. Fitts suffered from physical symptoms such as headaches, chest pains, and insomnia that were ascribed to bipolar disorder.

Prof. Frederick T. Goodwin from the George Washington School of Medicine stated: “bipolar disorder is a physical illness because it is a neurobiological disorder that affects the physical and chemical structure of the brain”. He supported the claims listed above, also making the point that susceptibility to pharmacological therapy suggest a physical cause. Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.

Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.
The defence team argued that bipolar disorder clearly falls within the “mental illness” category because previous judgments had ruled it to be such on the manifestation of the symptoms and because it appears in DSM-IV.
This case was an appeal on a previous judgement against Ms. Fitts’s claim. The first filing of the suit focussed on violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and breached certain contractual and common law duties. This court dismissed all of Ms. Fitts’ claims except her Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. ERISA requires all policies to be written in unambiguous language and given that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall within the definition of mental illness in the insurance policy, the court was bound by the doctrine of contra preferentem, which has been applied as federal common law to ERISA. The doctrine states that in ambiguous definitions the ruling should be against the drafter of the contract.

Other cases
Another case ongoing in North America illustrates the unfortunate consequences of stigmatisation of bipolar disorder leading to an understandable reluctance by those affected to openly disclose to employers a history of pre-existing mental illness. The Canadian insurers of the television series The Dead Zone filed a suit against star Anthony Michael Hall to recoup more than $612,000 for failure to disclose he suffered from bipolar disorder, AP reports. The suit claimed production of the series, shot in Vancouver, was halted from May to August 2001 when Hall was treated for “bipolar affective disorder depression with psychotic features” for which the production company submitted a claim and received money. The case is waiting to be heard at The Supreme Court of British Columbia. (Source: Vancouver Sun)

In a case in New York, which does not have parity legislation, a court ruled that a disability insurance policy is not discriminatory because it provided only 24 months of cover for disability due to unipolar depression, rather than cover to the age of 65 years as it would have done for disability due to physical injury. The appellant, a Charlene Polon, continued to suffer with unipolar depression and has not been able to claim disability allowance under her policy from 1996. The case was made under the Insurance Law, and the court ruled that the law only protected from discrimination “with regard to her eligibility for and access to insurance” and not within the terms of the policy[2]. This case demonstrates that many instances of discrimination continue to occur and that even the covering statutes are unclear

For the rest of the article, follow this link:http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354

For those of you who don’t know, a Shared Residency Order under the Children’s Act, is one where the children legally have a home with both their parents ie one with their mum and another one with their dad. They are not in a situation where one parent has sole residency and the other has contact rights, which has historically been the case with the majority of divorcing couples. (Typically the mum has had sole residency with the father having contact rights).

(I appreciate that many of you who read this article are in a worse financial position than I am in. I appreciate that many people both here in England and abroad live in similar circumstances and much, much worse. I am very fortunate to have a brother and his wife, who are kind enough and who have a spare bedroom, to put me up for this length of time. At least I’m not having to live in a refuge, or in a shelter……).

Please bear in mind that the reason I am writing this article is to illustrate the inequity in our particular financial circumstances. It is the inequity that I wish to highlight. I also wish to set out for you the legislation and to show how it is being applied to my case as an example).

In fact, the relevant principles are set out in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which, essentially, reads:-

“25 (1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers …. to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say –

(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g) …the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which … (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;…”

So, now we know the legal position, I will illustrate each of the points the Judge in the finance proceedings (known as Ancillary Relief proceedings) should have covered in his analysis and judgement of the facts of our particular case. (Note: the finance proceedings are a seperate set of proceedings to the Children’s Act proceedings.The Judge in the Children’s Act proceedings does not look into the finances of the couple but merely the residency issues of the children. The Judge in the finance proceedings only looks at the financial aspects of how the children and the divorcing couple are to be housed and maintained).

Taking each point in s25, I will set out the facts in our case:

>(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

Income:
My ex earns £450,000 per annum; I used to earn well as a City solicitor but gave it up to look after our children. Although I am self employed and starting to gradually work again, I earn very little. There is a huge disparity of income between us.

Earning capacity:
My ex will continue to earn this until his law firm decide not to continue to want his services. He is an equity partner and therefore a joint owner of the business so he can’t technically be “sacked” but he can be “eased out” by the other partners. He is in his late 40s so could still get other employment once he has to leave his current firm.

My earning capacity hinges on 2 factors:
1. I have Bipolar. Not only does this result in huge discrimination by employers (80% of the unemployed have mental health problems despite the fact that 90% of them want to be employed (government statistics), but working whilst managing my Bipolar is a challenge in terms of what job I could hold down succesfully.

2. I am now in my early 40s and have not been employed for 10 years. Although I am a solicitor, I am out of date with the law that I used to practise and so am re-educating myself with the current legislation. Clearly, it will take time to get myself fully back into the market, if indeed I can. I am also a woman and women still only make up 25% of partners in law firms, despite the fact that 60% of all lawyers qualifying are women. Women are still paid less than men for the same work, even trainee lawyers coming out of college are paid more. (Law Society statistics).

The Judge has therefore decided that I can be expected to earn around £18,000 per annum. The reality is that I am earning around £4000 per annum currently.
Financial needs:

We both have the need to finance our children: clothes, food, health care for them. My ex has a more onerous need in that he pays for their private education which is expensive. That is part of why he has been awarded more of his income which is fair enough. Because he has the children during term time, he has also been awarded more due to financing the cost of a full-time live in nanny and a cleaner! (The irony is that if he allowed me to look after them, he wouldn’t need to pay for a nanny or a cleaner!).

Other than that, however, I do not accept that his financial needs for himself should be given priority over mine. He should have the same clothing, food and healthcare allowance as me. Yet, his personal allowance is far greater than mine. This has been justified by saying that he works hard and therefore should be allowed more. Yet this flies in the face of the concept (supposedly embraced by the law) of equality in contribution between a bread winner and a parent who contributes by raising the children and running the home (which I had done for 8 years prior to the divorce).

The Judge has decided that my husband should have a disposable income amounting to between 89% – 92% of his income, whilst I should have between 6% and 11%of his income for only 5 years. Thereafter, he gets to keep his entire income whilst I get nothing.

Why is this fair? Apparently, because he has awarded me 2/3 of the value of the capital of the house. This would have been fine, except that the value of the capital is now not even going to cover my debts.

Property:
We jointly own a house worth millions (it was originally valued at around £3.5 – £4 million but the last offer we had was £2.5 million due to the recession and it still hasn’t sold). It has been on the market for 18 months now. The mortgage is £2.1 million and the costs of the sale will amount to around 1.5% of the value) Once you split the remainder, I am left with around £200,000 out of which I have to pay my legal fees and other debts amounting to £450,000. I therefore have no capital with which to buy a house and will be left with circa £250,00 worth of debt. Given my income position, I will have to declare myself bankrupt as I cannot clear these debts.

As a direct contrast, I do not have a home of my own at all, I have been awarded 6-11% of his annual salary out of which I have to pay £1500 per month on debt repayments. I therefore cannot afford to even rent a home. For the past year, I have had to borrow my boyfriend’s 11 year old car to drive the 120 mile round trip to see the children.

I am living in my brother’s spare bedroom in which the children and I have to live during the 50% of their time with me in the holidays and other times (their time with me amounts to around 200+ days a year). We all have to share a bed even though the children are now 10, 8 and 7. Their clothes are in 2 sets of drawers and a cupboard. Their toys are in toy boxes stacked in our bedroom.

When I go up to see them after school, or in one of their matches or for any other time with them, I have to drive 120 miles round trip (around 4 hours in a car) and they and I have to hang out in the town or in a hotel or in a cafe in order to spend time together. I am often having to stay at friend’s houses during the week when I have multiple visits up there. Not only is it unfair on my friends to continue to put me up, but it is exhausting for both me and the children to not have a home to go to when I see them. Whilst they are with me, we all have to share a bed and our one room has to contain all our worldly things.

This is not a sustainable situation.

(d) the age of estrong>(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

This legislation states that, in awarding maintenance, the Judge should give consideration to the fact that each spouse had been used to a certain standard of living during the marriage and, if finances allow, this standard should be continuing: in other words, one party should not be placed in a position of severed financial contrast to the others. The children should not be expected to have to cope with living with a parent who is substantially poorer than the other one ie go from a luxurious home to a poor home. Yet this is exactly what has happened.

Prior to divorce, we led a luxurious lifestyle, travelling to several destinations a year, eating out, going to the theatre, holding many parties etc, etc. We were extremely fortunate.

Now, it is very different for me. I am constantly worrying about my food bill, I very rarely eat out, I have been on one holiday in almost 2 years (and that was because a friend lent me her holiday home). Yet for him, his luxurious lifestyle has barely been touched.

My husband continues to live in this house with a full time live in nanny, our 7 double bedroom, (4 with ensuites), 5 reception rooms, 1/2 acre of land, has a full time live in nanny (who even works on weekends), a cleaner, a brand new BMW X5, a new Golf for the nanny and still happily affords to live a luxurious lifestyle, regularly eating out at nice restaurants, travelling and being a member of 2 sports clubs.

Section 25 (d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

We are both in our 40s – he is 6 years older than me. The Judge therefore accepted that he may have less time to earn money than I do. However, the fact is that in his time left, he will earn vastly more than I do therefore this is a skewed concept. If he continues to earn £450,000 for say 5 years, he will have earnt £2.7 million. In contrast, the Judge claimed that I should be able to earn £18,000 pa. If I can work til the same age as my husband stops working, then I can be expected to earn for another 12 years at £18,000 pa. This amounts to £216,000. With my maintenance award (which only lasts for 4 years from April), I will have received £406,000 in the next 12 years ie £33,833 pa.

This is an outright unjust and extraordinarily inequitable situation that I am in. I simply cannot understand how the Judge has allowed this situation to happen.

Duration of the marriage

This is relevant because the longer the parties are married, the more likely it is that they have jointly built a life together and therefore it is going to be harder for each of them to maintain themselves on their own.

We were married for 10 years, together for 13 years. Apparently, this is considered to be a “medium” length marriage.

s 25 (e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

I have a mental disability ie Bipolar. He has no disability. This immediately puts me at a severe disadvantage in terms of my ability to earn a good level of income. His ability is unencumbered.

Section 25 (f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family

My husband’s contribution is clear ie he was the main breadwinner funding our home’s mortgage and bills and lifestyle. I worked throughout most of my marriage on a part-time basis and so earnt very little. I spent the majority of my time being pregnant, giving birth (3 children in 3 years) then looking after our son who has a severe physical disability (ie Type 1 diabetes) which he got age 2. This meant that I could not work full time as he needs 24/7 care.

I also spent a huge amount of time on building our house which was a £1.3 million project. We increased the size of our house from 4000 sq ft to 7000 sq ft.

I therefore consider my contribution to our family as equal in value to his.

(g) …the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which … (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;…” </strong>

This is essentially a pension in our case. I have forfeited the chance of acquiring a pension as I have not been working full time during our marriage. My husband, in contrast, was able to put aside money for 2 pensions albeit that they are not substantial. He will continue to be able to provide for his pension, whereas my ability to do so will be extremely limited.

The Judgement and award:

The Judge heard all the arguments over a 5 day hearing. This is the award he came up with ie a maintenance award and a capital award:

1. Maintenance award:

I am to received 6.7% of his gross salary for 3 years and 11% for 2 years.

Out of this maintenance, I have to support the 3 children when they are with me as well as look after myself.

Typically, any spouse is awarded around 40% -50% of their ex’s income.

Capital:

Usually, the capital is split 50:50 depending on the needs of the children whose welfare is the court’s main concern. The main issue in any finance proceedings is that the children are to be provided with a home. This is why, historically, where the children have lived with their mum, the woman stays in the home and the husband has to move out and buy/rent another home for himself. This is not the legal situation we have: ours is a Shared Residency with both of us legally obliged to provide a home for the children.

We jointly own the home, but I have been awarded 2/3 of the value to ensure that I can provide a home for the children as I won’t be able to do this out of my income whereas my ex could provide a home out of his income position.

Conclusion:

The children and I am now in a position which is unsustainable and hugely inequitable. It is not fair on either them or I to be expected to live in a vastly inferior way to him and I am not going to tolerate it. I have tried to negotiate with him but he says it’s not his problem but mine. I have asked him to come to mediation but he refuses to do so. I have tolerated this for almost 2 years. I can no longer tolerate it and am not prepared to.

Unfortunately, more fireworks will ensue……

However, there are many studies which point to the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated against the mentally ill. Some might say that living with a person with a mental health problem “causes” them to become angry/frustrated/fed up with the sufferer and that they are “pushed” into becoming violent towards them or that they are “defending” themselves against the mentally ill person’s “attack” (verbal or physical). The huge problem with domestic violence is seeing through the issue of “who started it” much like a parent has to see through which child hit the other first or which child started the argument. What is obvious, however, (and supported by a lot of research) is that many sufferers of depression and anxiety have such low self esteem that it is very easy for them to become victims of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, ill-treatment etc as they find it very difficult to stand up for themselves or to believe in themselves sufficiently well to be assertive with those around them. People with mental ill health are often told that they have “lost their reason or judgement” and they therefore doubt themselves when their spouse is telling them that they are wrong/stupid/unreasonable/selfish/uncaring/lazy/irresponsible etc etc. They lack the certainty that their own perceptions and judgements are correct as they are constantly reminded that they are “ill”. This makes it very easy for an abuser to get to the core of their victim and succesfully abuse them, hold power over them and undermine them to the point of cruelty. The “mind games” that a spouse can play over their mentally ill partner can be devastating. 

This has been my own experience. My ex husband played with my mind in exactly this manner. I now see this and can compare it directly with my experience with my partner of the last 3 years. My partner plays none of these games, nor does he try and control, manipulate, bully or abuse me in any way. I am fortunate enough to have formed such a close bond with another person to enable me to make these comparisons.

Researching the link between mental ill health and domestic violence has been hugely helpful to me in making my recovery. I can distinguish between those behaviours of mine which were destructive and those behaviours which resulted from being abused by my ex husband. Reading the profiles of an abuser helps to recognise a pattern of behaviour or dynamic in a domestic violence relationship. As a result, a person can disentangle those behaviours which are attributable to their own personality and those which resulted from being abused.

One such piece of research is an article from Mr Lundy Bancroft. This article rings so true for me as it is so close to the truth of my own experience. I have highlighted in bold those sentences which are exactly like my ex spouses behaviour.  Read the entire article by clicking on the following link or by visiting the Justice for Mothers website:

Here is an except from Mr. Bancroft’s article:

An abuser’s desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping way from him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate “fear of abandonment.”) He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim, including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping. Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.

The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with “his” children; this theme is a common one in batterer groups. (Marie: My ex took out a Prohibited Steps Order against my new partner claiming that he was a danger to my children simply becuase he suffered from Bipolar too). He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations that the new partner is abusing the children, (Marie: there were numerous threatening letters sent to my new partner accusing him of all kinds of behaviour), cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in order to protect his sole province over his children.

A batterer who does file for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), (Marie: my ex spent earns over £450k pa but maintains that he cannot afford to pay maintenance to me). 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator.

There is also evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer’s advantage. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim’s perspective, and can lead to financial ruin for her and her children.

I am still living in my brother’s spare room, 18 months after being ordered to leave the matrimonial home whilst he remains in our 7 bedroomed house. This means that the children’s home with me is still my brother’s spare room where we all share a bed. I have no car of my own ( I have to borrow my boyfriend’s) whilst he has just bought a new BMW people carrier. I have been awarded 12% of his income whilst he keeps the rest. I am over £450k in debt.

Would this happen if I were not “mentally ill”? If I had been strong enough to stand up for myself, and/or didn’t have a set of medical records and a condition that would be used against me in court, would I be in the situation I’m in? I don’t think so. Many of my readers have given similar accounts of how they have been abused by their spouses due to their own lack of self esteem arising from their mental health problems. There are many articles, comments, forum chats where people have said the same thing ie that they have been abused by their partners because they have suffered from a mental health problem which their spouse has used against them to take control, intimidate, manipulate and ultimately punish by taking their children away from them.

Any similar stories out there? Anyone who disagrees with this perception/research? As usual, any feedback gratefully received….

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…

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.”

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.

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

The CRB is a government body which has been set up to help organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable to work with children or other vulnerable members of society. Given the number of high profile cases where sex offenders or other criminals have ended up working with children, the Government has issued guidance to schools and care homes, to ensure that they conduct proper checks on applicant’s backgrounds to determine whether or not they should be working with children and vulnerable adults.

A reader of this blog has said that, because she was sectioned by the police under the Mental Health Act, that she is afraid that it will show up on her CRB check. Because she works with children, she is now afraid that she won’t be able to work with them.

If any of you have ever been sectioned by the police, does this mean that it would show on your CRB check?

I have now researched this and, so far, my research says that being sectioned in relation to a non-criminal act will not show up on a CRB check because merely being sectioned is not a “crime” or an “criminal offence”. The fact that the police were involved does not make you a criminal.

If, however, your sectioning was as a result of a criminal act, then it may well show up. If that’s the case then you need to determine what type of offence it was as there are varying degrees of severity and varying types of offence. So, for example, if it was any kind of sexual offence, then clearly that will be far more serious then a lesser offence. If you have any questions or doubts about your rights, you can go on the CRB website and it will tell you.

On a personal note, I do not have any criminal records, although I was arrested once when I was a University student – the details are at the end if you want a laugh! Nothing to do with any criminal act on my part, I hasten to add.

the worst I have ever done was when I was a University student, in Oxford. My crime was to try and reason with a policeman who was then trying to arrest my drunken Rugby playing boyfriend following a Rugby team strip tease at a friends 21st birthday party – not unusual behaviour for Rugby players or for undergraduates but the local police were not amused! The policeman’s wife had been offended by the sight of so many bottoms (she was driving behind the bus containing the Rugby team) that she insisted on them being arrested!). I told the policeman that he couldn’t arrest my boyfriend unless he could identify him in court; given that my boyfriend’s bottom was the only part of him that his wife had seen, the police would never have been able to identify him!!! The policeman got so cross when I was telling him the law, that he arrested me and threw me in a cell for the day to teach me a lesson!!! I hadn’t sworn, nor threatened, nor touched him but I had told him the law and clearly that didn’t impress him…….

So, apart from that, I’ve never been a criminal, so my CRB check should be clear.

Bipolar disorder is a psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 1% of people at some point in their lives. The cause of the disorder is not known, although genetic factors are thought to play a large part and a few specific genes have also been discovered which appear to increase the risk in some studies. Unfortunately, we still don’t understand how these genes act upon the brain to make people more susceptable to illness. We hope to better understand these mechanisms by studying the relatives of people with the disorder.

Although most people who are related to someone with bipolar disorder will never develop the same illness, a few people will. We hope that by studying a large number of young relatives of people with the disorder, we might be able to predict who will become unwell later using a combination of scans, memory tests and a sample of blood for genetic testing. We are hoping to recruit the following groups of people:

• People age 16-23 with a mother, father, brother or sister with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, but with no history of psychiatric illness themselves.
• People age 16-23 with no close relatives with bipolar disorder and with no history of psychiatric illness themselves.

People who agree to take part will be assessed by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, receive a blood test for genetic testing and undergo a brain scan. The tests will be repeated again after 2 years. The information sheets explain the study in more detail and exactly what is involved. To download an information sheet click here. If you would like to take part after reading these, please contact us using the details at the bottom of this page.

If you are interested, you need to contact Dr Andrew McIntosh