CLSC, DPJ, the Police and Psychiatry: A Dangerous Combination

by Ghislain Goulet
printed with permission of Louise Baron

In her early twenties, Marie (Marie is a fictional name) is a single mother of three children. Unemployed, she has a violent boyfriend who prevents her from communicating with her family. Isolated, she has very little contact with the outside world.

In the last few weeks, she has been feeling tired; the responsibility of raising three children has taken its toll on her. She contacts the CLSC to ask for help. A few moments later, someone from DPJ (Département de la protection de la jeunesse) shows up at her door, introduces himself, and starts asking questions about her children; he asks to see their birth certificates. Afraid that her children may be taken away from her, Marie panics; she runs to a neighbour's house to call the police.

Marie returns home and waits for the police to arrive. The police arrive, notice the representative from DPJ but, of course, do not ask him to leave. So now, Marie has the police and children's protection services working against her. Finally, after endless negotiation and with the involvement of Marie's family, the children are placed under the care of Marie's brother.

That evening, an ambulance shows up at Marie's home to take her to a psychiatric hospital. She has no idea who has called the ambulance but there she is, in a hospital, against her will. A psychiatrist meets with her and concludes that she poses a danger and prescribes medication. The next day, another psychiatrist- who knows nothing about her case except what the first psychiatrist had said- confirms the diagnosis. Marie is placed under surveillance.

Marie rebels against her forced hospitalization refusing to acknowledge her condition. She categorically refuses to take her medication. She tries to leave the hospital, but in vain. She is then restrained and forced to take her medication. By then, of course, her hostile behaviour is noted: her chart reads that she is aggressive and a danger to herself.

The hospital refuses to give her the name of her medication nor do they inform her about its possible side-effects. She carefully removes the label on the medicine cup hoping to find out more about what they are giving her. So far, no one has told her what she was suffering from.Over time, appeased by her medication, Marie becomes more docile and agrees to take her meds.

With the support of her sister, Marie decides to take her case to court. Of course, the hospital tries to dissuade her from doing so claiming she has no legal recourse. Marie then contacts Action Autonomie to find out what her rights are. A lawyer is hurriedly assigned to her case - literally overnight. He barely has enough time to prepare for the hearing much less actually meet with Marie.

On January 5th, Marie - under the influence of medication - meets with her lawyer, escorted by a hospital attendant and a security guard. As if things weren't bad enough already, she only has a few minutes to confer with her attorney before the hearing begins. However, her lawyer is confident about her case. He claims that she should be released from the hospital today as he sees no reason why she was placed under psychiatric care in the first place. What she really needs, he says, is simply a chance to rest and recuperate. It is decided that her sister will take her in, and her brother will continue to take care of the children.

The hearing is barely underway when the judge asks her lawyer if he has an expert-witness, a psychiatrist who can contradict the diagnosis. The lawyer answers no, that he hasn't had time to find one. The judge refuses to go any further; he will postpone the hearing to the following week and orders Marie to remain in the hospital until then. The lawyer objects and explains to the court the events leading up to Marie's hospitalization. The judge agrees to hear the case.

The first witness is a psychologist from the hospital who gives an impressive list of Marie's mental illnesses. Her lawyer then asks whether she poses a danger. The shrink's answer is vague : he wouldn't know since he is unaware of Marie's past or present situation. And since she has no history of mental illness, he could not arrive at a precise diagnosis. He couldn't understand how she ended up in the hospital. Furthermore, he points out that her condition had greatly improved since her hospitalization was ordered at the end of December.

When the lawyer says that Marie's sister is prepared to take her in to take care of her, the shrink seems surprised. Asked whether he believes that could pose a danger, the shrink begins to mumble and says yes... there could be danger. When asked what kind of danger, the shrink responds that he could not know that since the diagnosis was not precise.

The shrink then turns to the judge and says that he would prefer if Marie receive treatment at the hospital. (i.e. take her medication).

Finally, Marie is called to testify. She retells the events leading up to her hospitalization. However, when asked if she will continue to take her medication after she is released from the hospital, Marie, in all honesty, (God forbid) responds that she would not. The judge then immediately puts an end to the hearing refusing to hear Marie's sister's testimony - testimony which would have clarified Marie's situation.

Finally, the judge orders that Marie be kept at the hospital under surveillance for a week. He lectures her on the gravity of her situation given the fact that children's protection services had to get involved, and that he understands that it cannot be easy for a frail young woman such as herself to raise three children on her own. Paternalistic, he points out that she should take advantage of this week at the hospital to seek help.

A few days later, Marie and her sister meet with the shrink. He has the court order lifted and Marie is released from the hospital.

We have rights!

Can you see how Marie's rights were not respected?
Let us know your answers.
Here is the law as it pertains to keeping someone in an institution
Unless your consent is freely given with full knowledge of your rights and circumstances, or that it is authorized by law or the court; it is illegal to keep you in an institution either for a psychiatric evaluation to follow up with a psychiatric evaluation.
The only condition that would justify keeping you in an institution would be if your mental state indicates:

a danger to yourself or others
a serious and immediate danger to yourself or others

Hence, the purpose of keeping someone in an institution is to deprive them of their freedom. But even when institutionalized, a person still retains all their other rights. For example, he or she cannot be forced to take medication or undergo any treatment whatsoever. This is where the rules of free and informed consent apply.
For additional information, you can reach Action Autonomie at 525-5060.
Translated by Marie Soudre

Table of contents
From the Incredible to the Ridiculous | Poetry