In Re Carmelita B., The Court Said That "Parenting Is A Fundamental Right, and

Child Custody and Mental Illness
1. Thesis Statement
Mental illness by itself is not sufficient reason to deny parents custody of their
children. Many people with mental illnesses are still capable of properly parenting
their children.
2. Scope
This paper will discuss how psychology is an inexact science and how the courts
do not completely rely upon it to make child custody decisions. This paper will
also address the fact that even if one has been diagnosed with a mental illness, it
does not prevent one from retaining the custody of their children. There are more
important factors, such as harm and detriment to the child that determine
custody of children, and we cannot make assumptions that just because one is
mentally ill they will harm their children.
This paper is not an exhaustive research into all the factors that determine child
custody. It only focuses on how the courts have ruled in regards to some mental
illness and child custody cases.
3. Argument
Parenting is a constitutional right that must be protected. By the 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, people are guaranteed life, liberty and happiness. No
State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.
In Re Carmelita B., the court said that Parenting is a fundamental right, and
accordingly, is disturbed only in extreme cases of persons acting in a fashion
incompatible with parenthood.1
The California Supreme Court has said that Our society does recognize an
`essential' and `basic' presumptive right to retain the care, custody, management,
and companionship of one's own child, free of intervention by the government
and the state may disturb an existing parent-child relationship only for
strong reasons and subject to careful procedures. 2

In order to protect Constitutional rights, the mentally ill should only be denied
custody of their children if they present a danger to their children or are unable to
properly care for them. The court in In re B.G., held that where custody of
children was in issue, it requires a finding by the court that placement away from
the parent "... is essential to avert harm to the child...."3 (Italics added.)
Just because a person is mentally ill does not mean they cannot parent their
children. Mental illness is not a barrier to child custody and it does not always
hurt or harm a child. The court said In Re Jamie M. that Harm to the child cannot
be presumed from the mere fact of mental illness of the parent. . . . 4
A psychotic illness can, but does not need to, interfere with an individuals
ability to be a good parent. Given well-timed, appropriate, and adequate
education and resources, many individuals with psychotic illness succeed in
parenting their children.5
In the Matter of Nereida S., the court said that termination of a mentally ill
parents custody of their child is only warranted when their conduct presents an
inability to care for their child. The court further went on to emphasize that it was
the parents conduct and not their mental illness that should be the basis for a
termination of parental rights.6
Further, mental health professionals should take special care when making
mental illness diagnoses and judges should not blindly follow a mental health
professionals diagnoses. Psychology is an inexact science based upon theory and
opinion. Diagnoses are difficult to standardize because there are no specific
physical findings or laboratory data---just human behavior which constantly
changes.7
The court in Simms v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehab., described psychological
testimony as psychobabble and said that it cannot be the basis for terminating a
parents custody of a child. [T]hat vague, undeniable, but impertinent
underpinning, formulated from testimony best described as psychobabble,

cannot form the basis of an order that severs for all time the bonds of parent and
child.8
There is plenty of evidence showing that the courts are aware that psychology is
not completely reliable. In Re Carmelita B. the court said that [F]amily rights,
both the parent's and the child's rights, should not be vulnerable to a too easy
finding of mental illness. 9
Psychologists and psychiatrists are sometimes too quick to diagnose a person
with a mental illness and do not always take the time needed to properly
diagnose. The court In Re Carmelita B. noted that Dr. Vargas mental illness
diagnosis of Mrs. B. was made after only one 1-hour examination. The court
found that there was no substantial evidence for a finding that Mrs. B. was
mentally ill.10
And in Addington v. Texas, the court said that abnormal behavior may seem like a
mental illness but in fact may not be. At one time or another every person
exhibits some abnormal behavior which might be perceived by some as
symptomatic of a mental or emotional disorder, but which is in fact within a range
of conduct that is generally acceptable. 11
In Santosky v. Kramer12 the court said that A finding of mental disability must be
supported by the evidence of two experts. . . . This is because the diagnoses of
mental health professionals can be so variable. One professional may find there is
a mental illness while the other may not.
Even if a person has been diagnosed with a mental illness, this diagnosis does not
say how children will be affected. In Re Jamie M., the court said this about a
mother with a mental illness diagnosis. "The mere fact she is labeled a
schizophrenic really tells us very little about her behavior and its affect [sic] on her
children.13
In re Heather P. the Court of Appeal said that detriment and harm to the child
cannot be presumed because of mental illness of the parent. The court said, It
cannot be presumed that a mother who is proven to be `schizophrenic' will
necessarily be detrimental to the mental or physical well-being of her offspring.

There are innumerable eccentric parents whose behavior on certain occasions
may be less then [sic] socially acceptable and yet they are loving and
compassionate parents. 14
The court found that a psychologists opinion was insufficient to support a finding
of detriment. The psychologists general statements did not show how the minor
would be harmed.15
Conclusion
Mental illness should not prevent a parent from parenting their children. Rather,
conduct that is contrary to the well-being of the child should be taken into
consideration and mental illness by itself should not prevent a parent from
retaining custody of their children.
Mental illness is like a disability and as the handicapped are not denied custody of
their children just because of their disability, the mentally ill should not be denied
custody of their children just because of their mental illness.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against the mentally
ill.16 The mentally ill are often subject to overprotective rules and policies,
discrimination and prejudice. People with mental disabilities are frequently
precluded from participating in all aspects of society because of prejudice and
discrimination.
The new amendment to the ADA in 2008 "makes it absolutely clear that the ADA
is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination
on the basis of disability".
In Re Carmelita B., 21 Cal.3d 482 (1978), 146 Cal. Rptr. 623

In re Kieshia E., 6 Cal.4th 68, 76 (1993), 23 Cal. Rptr.2d 775, 859 P.2d 1290
3
In re B.G., 11 Cal.3d 679, 699 (1974)
4
In Re Jamie M.,134 Cal. App. 3d 530 (1980), 184 Cal. Rptr. 778
2
Mary V. Seeman, Intervention to Prevent Child Custody Loss in Mothers with Schizophrenia
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/sprt/2012/796763/
6
7
Matter of Nereida S., 57 N.Y.2d 636, 640

See Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Psychoheresy (1st ed. 1987)
Simms v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehab., 641 So.2d 957, 963 (1994)
Supra note 1, at 489

Supra note 1, at 492.
10
11
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) at page 427

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982)
13
Supra note 4, at page 540
14
In re Heather P., 203 Cal. App.3d 1214, 1228 (1988)
15
Id. at 1229-1230
16
42 U.S.C. 12101
12

In Re Carmelita B., The Court Said That "Parenting Is A Fundamental Right, and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Carmelita B., The Court Said That "Parenting Is A Fundamental Right, and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Carmelita B., The Court Said That "Parenting Is A Fundamental Right, and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Custody and Mental Illness

strong reasons and subject to careful procedures. 2

underpinning, formulated from testimony best described as psychobabble,

necessarily be detrimental to the mental or physical well-being of her offspring.

In Re Carmelita B., 21 Cal.3d 482 (1978), 146 Cal. Rptr. 623

Matter of Nereida S., 57 N.Y.2d 636, 640

Supra note 1, at 489

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) at page 427

You might also like