When Systems Collide: Mental Health, Family Courts, and the Treatment of Male Abuse Allegations

This article examines a family court case spanning 2019–2021 in which serious concerns were raised about how psychological evidence, mental health history, and allegations of domestic abuse made by a father were handled. All individuals are anonymised. This is a systems-focused account based on records, assessments, and professional opinions, not an assertion of misconduct.

 

Background and Early Trauma

 

The man at the centre of this case spent part of his childhood in the care system. He later developed symptoms consistent with complex trauma. For many years, NHS treatment focused on depression and anxiety, without a diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).

 

Earlier Family Court Proceedings (2009)

 

In 2009, the man was involved in earlier family court proceedings lasting approximately three years. During this period, he believed he was the biological father of a child. It was later established that he was not. This discovery had a profound psychological impact and coincided with a period of suicidal ideation at that time.

During those proceedings, a psychologist conducted a brief assessment lasting approximately one hour. The psychologist recorded it as two hours and concluded that the man met criteria for emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD). The man disputed this conclusion.

Following this, the NHS carried out a more extensive assessment over five weeks, consisting of weekly one-hour sessions, using the recognised diagnostic tools for EUPD. That assessment concluded that he did not meet the criteria for EUPD.

 

Later Proceedings (2019–2021)

 

Between 2019 and 2021, the man returned to family court in separate proceedings concerning his daughter. During this case, a psychologist produced a report that contained factual inaccuracies and relied, in part, on the earlier disputed EUPD opinion.

When the man sought to rely on the NHS assessment from 2009 as evidence, the psychologist stated that she believed he had lied to the NHS psychologist at that time. No judicial finding was made on this assertion.

 

Mental Health Deterioration and Medical Evidence

 

During the later proceedings, the man’s mental health deteriorated significantly. He was prescribed mirtazapine and sertraline, medications recognised as carrying a risk of inducing manic symptoms in individuals with underlying bipolar spectrum conditions.

Following a series of assessments, an NHS consultant psychiatrist later diagnosed the man with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and bipolar affective disorder type III. The psychiatrist recorded that the manic episode he experienced was medication-induced.

At the time of the later family court proceedings, the man did not express suicidal ideation. He stated to professionals that he would not take his own life, explaining that he could not inflict that trauma on his children.

 

Court Process and Evidence

 

In the later case, the man sought to rely on five sworn affidavits relating to allegations that he had been subjected to domestic abuse by his partner. Three of those affidavits were excluded by the court prior to any fact-finding hearing.

Records show that the judge who excluded three of the five affidavits was married to a barrister connected to the proceedings, although that barrister did not formally represent the opposing party on the day in question. The decisions were made during the COVID-19 period, when hearings were conducted remotely. No findings were made as to whether this connection influenced the outcome.

The hearing in question was conducted as a procedural hearing rather than a fact-finding hearing, meaning the excluded material was not tested through evidence.

 

Manic Episode and Police Response

 

During the manic episode identified by the NHS consultant psychiatrist as medication-induced, the man engaged in a series of destructive behaviours that he later stated he had little to no recollection of at the time. These actions included damage to multiple vehicles.

He was assessed by NHS doctors during this period and recorded as being fit for discharge. Subsequent psychiatric opinion indicated that he was not psychiatrically stable at that stage. Rather than being admitted for mental health treatment, he was taken into police custody.

The man later reported that his treatment while in police custody was distressing and dehumanising. He stated that his mental health needs were not adequately recognised or accommodated, and that the response prioritised criminal processing over healthcare.

 

Complaint and Oversight

 

Following these events, the man made a formal complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) regarding his treatment by police officers while he was experiencing an acute mental health crisis.

No findings are reported here regarding the outcome of that complaint. The reference reflects the existence of a formal oversight process, rather than a determination of misconduct.

 

Systems Impact

 

Clinicians later noted that the proceedings required the man to repeatedly recount traumatic childhood experiences while simultaneously being denied contact with his daughter. Professionals expressed concern that the combination of trauma reactivation, prolonged legal stress, medication instability, and criminal justice involvement exacerbated his mental health difficulties.

 

What the Research Shows

 

- Individuals with histories of childhood trauma are vulnerable to retraumatisation in adversarial systems
- Antidepressant medication can induce manic episodes in people with undiagnosed bipolar spectrum disorders
- Male victims of domestic abuse face additional barriers to disclosure and belief
- Mental health crises are often mismanaged at the interface between healthcare and policing
- Excluding evidence before fact-finding increases the risk of incomplete judicial understanding

 

Conclusion

 

This case highlights the consequences that can arise when disputed psychological opinions, fragmented mental health care, and procedural court decisions intersect. It raises wider questions about how systems identify vulnerability, test evidence, and respond to parents with complex trauma histories. Addressing these gaps is essential to ensuring fairness, safety, and dignity within family justice and mental health systems.

 

Editor’s Note and Safeguarding Statement

 

This article is published in accordance with the editorial standards of Carl Christopher Sheldon & Associates. All individuals are anonymised. No findings of fact are asserted beyond what is attributed to professional records, assessments, or the subject’s reported account.

Where professional opinions differ, those differences are reported as such. References to psychological, psychiatric, policing, and court processes are intended to examine systemic interaction rather than to allege misconduct by any named or identifiable individual.

Matters relating to ongoing or historic proceedings are handled with care to avoid prejudice. Medical information is reported through attribution to clinicians and records, not as independent diagnosis by the outlet.

This article discusses mental health crisis, trauma, and distressing experiences. Readers affected by these themes are encouraged to seek appropriate support.

 

Executive Summary

 

This investigation documents how disputed psychological opinions, fragmented NHS care, and procedural decisions in family court intersected over time for a father with a history of childhood trauma. Between 2019 and 2021, evidence relating to his allegations of domestic abuse was curtailed prior to fact‑finding, while earlier contested diagnoses continued to influence proceedings. Subsequent NHS psychiatric assessment identified CPTSD and bipolar affective disorder type III, with a manic episode recorded as medication‑induced. The case illustrates systemic risk where credibility hardens without testing, mental health crises are diverted into criminal justice pathways, and trauma is repeatedly re‑activated without adequate safeguards.

 

Publication Disclaimer

 

This article is published for public‑interest reporting and systems analysis. It does not allege wrongdoing by any named or identifiable individual. Statements regarding health, court processes, policing, and professional opinions are reported with attribution to records, assessments, or the subject’s account, and reflect differences of opinion where they exist. No inference should be drawn beyond what is expressly stated.

 

Publication Timing and Context

 

This story is being published now following a period of careful consideration and verification. Although the events described span earlier years, subsequent clinical assessments, document review, and reflection on systemic learning have made it appropriate to examine the case in a broader public-interest context.

 

Why Publish Now

 

The decision to publish at this point reflects three factors: (1) the availability of later NHS psychiatric assessments that clarify earlier diagnostic uncertainty; (2) the passage of time since the conclusion of proceedings, reducing risk of interference; and (3) the ongoing public discussion about how family courts, mental health services, and policing intersect, particularly for male victims of abuse and individuals with complex trauma histories.

Internal Editorial Check

Prior to publication, this article underwent an internal editorial review to assess accuracy, attribution, and legal risk. Language was reviewed to ensure that disputed matters are presented as differences of professional opinion or process outcomes, rather than findings of misconduct. Identifying details have been removed or anonymised.