THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
True or false
1.The MHA cannot be used under the age of 12
2.The Zone of Parental Control is enshrined in the Children Act
3.Article 8 of the Human Rights Act does not apply to children
4.The Concept of parental authority is codified in the MHA
5.The MHA is the only legislation that gives authority to treat children and
young people for mental disorder
6.In a 14 year old, when making decisions about consent, the wishes of
the parents prevail
7.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is enshrined
in UK law
8.Section 25 of the Children Act allows for the legal detention of children
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A 15 year old girl is seen after an overdose. She has taken a potentially
lethal combination of pills, after an argument, with short lived intention
to die. She did not disclose her actions voluntarily, but her mother was
in the house, guessed, and she confessed. She came to hospital
voluntarily.
She has some depressive symptoms, but is not suicidal at present. It is
her second overdose, having taken a smaller, more covert one in similar
circumstances 3 months ago. She lives with her mother, her parents
having split up 6 months ago. She is struggling at school both socially
and academically but does not have learning difficulties. She has
regular thoughts of suicide, and notably her mother has a history of
mental health problems and has taken overdoses herself in the last 6
months.
You think she needs outpatient individual therapy. She says that she will
only come along to therapy if you keep her mother out of it, and do not
tell her mother anything. If you do not abide by this, she will decline
treatment.
THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983
Should all be familiar with it.
Major differences to previous legislation was the creation of the MHAC
(consent to treatment, MHRT, additional protections) and the treatability
test
THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 Revised 2007
Should all be familiar with it.
Community Treatment Orders 17A
Tribunals and Appeals
The Zone of Parental Control
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Types of decisions a person with PR can make in relation to the care and treatment of
their child
Each decision needs to be made in the particular circumstances of each situation
Not decided by social norms but by the dynamics of that particular parent-child
relationship
The main areas for debate
Does this fall within the area of usual parenting decision
Does the parent have the capacity to make the decision
Is the parent acting in the child’s best interests
If all three answered yes then may rely upon the parents consent
If not then less confident that the decision lies in the ZOPC
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007) (ZOPC)
What does it do?
In the incapacitated minor it allows parents to consent on their behalf if the
decision is felt to fall within the ZOPC
In the capacitated minor over 16 very little. The MHA gives guidance NOT to use
parental consent in a capacitated minor over 16. Parents will be consulted about
treatment decisions when capacity is in question in establishing best interests.
In the capacitated minor under 16 very little. The MHA gives guidance that it
would be ‘UNWISE’ in view of recent European Case Law to rely upon parents
consent to override the refusal of a capacitated minor. Parents will be consulted
about treatment decisions when capacity is in question in establishing best
interests.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Why is it such a shock ?
For years we have relied upon Law Lords rulings on Case Law that support the
over-riding of the refusal of capacitated minors
To be more exact…….
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Family Law Reform Act 1969
…. “the consent of a minor who has attained the age of 16..shall be as effective as
it would be if he were of full age : and where a minor has given effective consent to
any treatment it shall not be necessary to obtain any consent for it from his parent
or guardian”
AND
Lord Scarman 1986
( Gillick versus West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA)
… “the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of
16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves a
sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully
what is proposed”
AND
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
AND FINALLY…..
Lord Donaldson discussing the Gillick case
Case of Re:R ( 15 year old ) and Re:W ( 16 year old)
…. “I do not understand Lord Scarman to be saying that, if a child was ‘Gillick
competent‘…the parents ceased to have a right of consent as contrasted to have a
right of determination, i.e. a veto. In a case in which the competent child refuses
treatment, but the parents consent, that consent allows the treatment to be
undertaken lawfully”.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Note :
The higher gravity given in the law to refusal to consent in the past. Higher
level of sophistication is felt to be required to balance up and refuse a
decision than to balance up and consent to a decision
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
‘The existing legal framework operates on the principle that parents are
responsible for care and professionals for healthcare of young people.
Although adolescent autonomy is recognised and given increasing respect
in the law, the family is still considered to be the best organisation in which
to raise children and make decisions about them. At the boundary of
adolescent consent and autonomy the following question is asked ‘when is
it right for children to step away from the protective decision making of
family and ultimately the state ?’
(Moli Paul 2004 APT)
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
So where did it come from
You could say it was already there but now the mortar has set in a particular
position
THE MHA 1983 revised 2007 states that it arises from European Case Law
quoting the Nielsen versus Denmark Case………
(Always remember that each Case in Law draws upon a list of judgements given
before)
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Nielsen v. Denmark , 11 Eur. H.R. Rep 175 (1989), 28-11-1988
Facts: The mother and sole holder of parental rights of a 12-year-old child requested the
hospitalization of her child in psychiatric ward of a State hospital for 5 months. However, the
child expressed his wish not to be incarcerated and wanted his maturity acknowledged.
Complaint: the applicant is the child who was hospitalized by his mother. He claimed the
authorities breached his right to liberty guaranteed by article 5 of the Convention.
Holding: the ECHR held that the protection afforded by article 5 (right to liberty) also covers
minors. However, article 5 did not apply in this particular situation and the Court did not find
any violation of the child's right to liberty by the domestic authorities.
Reasoning: the minor was hospitalized at the request of mother, sole holder of the parental
rights. The Court examine the applicants' actual situation to determine if there had been
deprivation or restriction of liberty to which article 5 applied and looked at the type, duration,
effects and manner of implementation of the measures in question. It concluded that the
hospitalization of the applicant did not amount to deprivation of liberty but was a responsible
exercise by the mother of her custodial rights in the interest of the child.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
In short
The Nielsen case did rule in favour of a parent operating their parental
authority but...
Although that case decided that the mother could lawfully consent to the
child being admitted to a psychiatric hospital in those particular
circumstances, it also said clearly that the rights of a parent were not
unlimited
That is, it was beginning to pay attention to the limits of parental control and
authority
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
•Extensive trawl of European Case Law testing the Human Rights Act
•Discussion with lawyers who wrote ‘Legal Aspects of the Care and
Treatment of Children and Young People with Mental Disorder 2009’
•Discussion with Professor Richard Jones, Consultant in Mental Health and
Community Care Law
•Contact with the DOH over the ZOPC
It is based upon one case, but that case drew upon many other rulings and
different competing interests
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
So what is it about ?
Some would say it was already there in a form…
The Hewer and Bryant Law Lords ruling of 1969
Lord Denning ruled concerning specific parental rights of custody that such a
right….
“is a dwindling [one] which the courts will hesitate to enforce against the wishes of
the child, the older he is. It starts with a right of control and ends with little more
than advice”
It appears that for the first time the MHA has directed when that right of
control absolutely stops and when it is a grey area
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does it pull upon anything else?
Article 3 HRA
punishment
Right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment or
An absolute right
Patients with or without capacity remain under Art 3 protection
Inhuman treatment must go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or
humiliation that may be connected with legitimate treatment
Clinical decisions that are proportionate, therapeutically necessary and in keeping
with accepted practice are very unlikely to be outside the margin
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does it pull upon anything else?
Article 5HRA
Right to liberty
A qualified right
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in circumstances set out in article 5
which includes the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does is pull upon anything else ?
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
A qualified right
Para 1: Everyone has the right to respect for private and family life, his home and
his correspondence
Para 2: There shall be no interference by public authority with this right except
such as in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the
country, for prevention of crime and disorder, for the protection of health and
morals or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
If Para 1 is infringed have to qualify why with Para 2
Note article 8 tensions
Competition between competing rights of young people and family
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Article 8 continued
Proportionality – clinical intervention needs to balance the severity of the effect of the
intervention with the severity of the presenting clinical problem i.e. be a proportionate
response to a clinical scenario.
Margin of appreciation – domestic states have different accepted clinical practices and
standards; hence the margin of appreciation is accepted as being very wide to reflect this.
Therefore, clinical decisions which are proportional, therapeutically necessary and in keeping
with accepted clinical practice are very unlikely to be outside this margin
Private life – this concept covers the right to develop one’s own personality and to create
relationships with others. It contains both positive and negative aspects.
Competing Article 8 rights Cases may involve competing Article 8 rights between children
and their parents or carers. In any case where the Article 8 rights of parents and those of a
child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration; in any balancing of
interests, the interests of the child must prevail.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Note the case of Yousef versus Netherlands 2003
This involved a child born to Middle Eastern father and Dutch mother. The child lived with her
mother. Parents never married but lived together for one year. Father went back to Middle
East. The mother developed terminal illness, and asked her family to look after the child. In
her will she expressed her view that her child was best brought up by her family, with her
name. In her terminal decline the father returned and had fortnightly contact with the child.
On her death, he made application for the child to put in his care, her name to be changed to
his.
The European court noted that this was a collision of child’s and father’s article 8 rights.
It ruled that in "judicial decisions where the rights under article 8 of parents and of a child are
at stake, the child's rights must be the paramount consideration".
This tension was previously examined in Hendricks v Netherlands 5 EHRR 223 1982:
denial of access by divorced father to child. The ruling was the same, that “When there was a
serious conflict between the interests of a child and one of its parents which could only be
resolved to the disadvantage of one of them, the interests of the child had to prevail under
Article 8(2)”
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does it pull upon anything else?
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (UNCRC)
Not part of domestic law but ratified by our Govt and Govt have committed to doing all it can
to implement it
It is used to adjudicate if there are tensions between adults and children, or when children
are involved in a case
Article 5 UNCRC
Parental guidance and the child's evolving capacities
The State must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents and the extended family to
provide guidance for the child which is appropriate to her or his evolving capacities.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does it pull upon anything else?
Article 12
UNCRC The child's opinion
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the
right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child
being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any
judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a
representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of
national law
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
Does it pull upon anything else?
Article 16
UNCRC Protection of privacy
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and
reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
In summary the ZOPC draws upon existing Law Lords rulings, existing
Statute Law, the Human Rights Act and the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child and gives a view.
It is a view in Law.
It is a line in the sand.
It will be contested by parents who are removed from the right to direct the
care, treatment and safety of their children.
That contest will explore the weighting of autonomy versus benificence in
relation to particular cases
THE ZONE OF PARENTAL CONTROL (MHA 1983 REVISED 2007)
So what do you think. Do the following things fall within a ZOPC in your view
Return of an informal patient, being assessed for DSH aged 13 to an inpatient unit
Restriction of day leave for an informal 16 year old, with psychotic illness, who has
capacity
Insistence that a 15 year old on an inpatient unit informally goes to the unit school
The use of injectable medication in a 14 year old severely disturbed with PTSD on an
inpatient unit
The outpatient treatment of an 8 year old for ADHD who does not want treatment
The outpatient treatment of an 13 year old with depression with suicidal thoughts who
does not want treatment
The measurement of blood pressure in a 10 year old already treated for ADHD
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
So what do we do from now on
Capacity in decision making is one of the keys
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
‘For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material
time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an
impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.’
This means that a person lacks capacity if:
• they have an impairment or disturbance (for example, a disability, condition or trauma) that
affects the way their mind or brain works, and
• the impairment or disturbance means that they are unable to make a specific decision at the
time it needs to be made.
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
An assessment of a person’s capacity must be based on their ability to make a specific decision
at the time it needs to be made, and not their ability to make decisions in general.
•Does the person have a general understanding of what decision they need to make and why
they need to make it?
• Does the person have a general understanding of the likely consequences of making, or not
making, this decision?
• Is the person able to understand, retain, use and weigh up the information relevant to this
decision?
• Can the person communicate their decision (by talking, using sign language or any other
means)? Would the services of a professional (such as a speech and language therapist) be
helpful?
**NB Basic structure provided by the Re C Test
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
The person who assesses an individual’s capacity to make a decision will usually be the person
who is directly concerned with the individual at the time the decision needs to be made. This
means that different people will be involved in assessing someone’s capacity to make
different decisions at different times.
For most day-to-day decisions, this will be the person caring for them at the time a decision
must be made. For example, a care worker might need to assess if the person can agree to
being bathed. Then a district nurse might assess if the person can consent to have a dressing
changed.
.
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
If a doctor or healthcare professional proposes treatment or an examination, they must assess
the person’s capacity to consent. In settings such as a hospital, this can involve the multidisciplinary team (a team of people from different professional backgrounds who share
responsibility for a patient). But ultimately, it is up to the professional responsible for the
person’s treatment to make sure that capacity has been assessed
More complex decisions are likely to need more formal assessments (see paragraph 4.54
below). A professional opinion on the person’s capacity might be necessary. This could be, for
example, from a psychiatrist, psychologist, a speech and language therapist, occupational
therapist or social worker. But the final decision about a person’s capacity must be made by the
person intending to make the decision or carry out the action on behalf of the person who
lacks capacity – not the professional, who is there to advise.
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
Once incapacity established proceed in best interests
Find out the person’s views
Consult others
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
Note. There is a distinction drawn between
1. Incapacity due to a disorder of mind or brain
2. Incompetence due to lacking sufficient maturity to come to a grave decision
The distinction is said to matter in decision-making but nobody tells us in what way.
CAPACITY AND DECISION MAKING
NOTE
Advanced directives do not apply under the age of 18
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards do not apply under the age of 18
In other words if Incapacitated and over 16 you can be detained under best interests
often with the guidance of parents, without the safeguards that an adult would be
entitled to
In that situation the Mental Health Act may be more appropriate for its inherent
safeguards.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
•
Key documents
•
Confidentiality and Security of
information in Mental Health
Practice ( APT 2002 8:291)
GMC: Confidentiality and
Protecting Information 2004
RCPsych : Good Psychiatric
Practice 2000
•
•
•
•
•
Human Rights Act 1998
Data Protection Act 1998
Caldicott Principles ( DOH 1997)
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
•
Definitions
•
Privacy concerned with limiting
access to a person. Infringed if
unauthorised access gained to an
individual’s privacy
•
Confidentiality concerned with
keeping secret information given
to a person by another person.
Infringed if holder of info fails to
protect info or deliberately
discloses without the givers
consent
•
Security of Information is a
broader concept than
confidentiality, embracing the
protection of privacy and
confidentiality as well as integrity
and accuracy. It refers to the
process, technical and
organisational, necessary to
protect information collection,
storage and transmission.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
•
•
Key Principles
Confidentiality is both an ethical
and legal issue. A matter of
medical ethics and professional
conduct.
•
Ethical principles in health care
•
•
•
•
Autonomy :
Beneficence :
Non-maleficence:
Justice :
•
Confidentiality frequently becomes
in issue at the interface of
autonomy and justice.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
• ‘Doctors are bound by a professional duty to maintain the
confidentiality of personal health information unless the patient gives
valid consent, the patient is incapable of giving consent, the doctor
believes disclosure to be in that person’s best interests.’( Law society
and the BMA 1997)
•
Patients have a right to expect that Doctors will keep confidential any
personal information that they acquire during the course of
professional duties unless permission to disclosure is given. They
also need to know that this duty can be overridden. Disclosure may be
deemed necessary without consent.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
•
When it may be infringed without consent
•
1. In the patient's best interests : to an appropriate person/authority.
Based on incapability, immaturity or mental incapacity
•
2. In the interests of others : in the public interest where failure to disclose
may expose others to risk of death or serious harm
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
• In considering infringement of confidentiality without consent
• Weigh up :
•
•
•
•
Risks of non-disclosure
Benefits of disclosure
Risks of disclosure
Working context ( situations of dual obligation)
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
•
Prior to disclosure usual procedure should include
1.
Explain to patient reason for sharing information (‘wherever
practical to do so’)
Encourage patient to inform the relevant authority
If patient refuses, then disclose
Document decision ( and interests of any competing parties if
present)
2.
3.
4.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
• Competing obligations
• Self harm in adolescents
• Adolescent autonomy key developmental task and yet may come
directly into conflict with best interests
• Is it in their best interests to allow them to self-harm
• Is it respectful of parents rights to be parents not to tell them of their
child's impulses/ thoughts/ risks/ to deprive them of their right to
parent their child
• Patients threatening self harm do not usually fall under the mental
health act
• Adolescents may demand confidence is kept
• Parents have right to make treatment decisions on their behalf
• Both have a right to respect for their family life
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
• European Court Case Law ( E.P. 2001)
• ‘A fair balance must be struck between the interests of the child and
those of the parent and…..in doing so particular importance must be
attached to the best interests of the child, which depending on the
nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent’
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DECISION MAKING
• A 16 year old boy is admitted to your 5 day unit. He is suicidal and
depressed. He states that he wants nothing more to do with his
family. He is sullen and uncommunicative. At weekends he stays
with friends. Occasionally he goes to his family home, collects
belongings, has some food but won’t speak to his mother. The
parents are terribly worried and request some information, not
wanting to intrude but just to know that he is OK
• How would you approach this issue ?
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Children Act 1989
Came into force in 1991 after intensive period of training in
interagency cooperation.
Was intended to provide a new framework for the care and
protection of children, to establish a new range of court
orders and to introduce three new concepts
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Concept 1
The welfare principle
The child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount
consideration
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Concept 2
The no delay principle
In any proceedings follow the general principle that any delay is likely to
prejudice the welfare of the child
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Concept 3
The ‘No order principle’
The court shall not make an order unless it considers that doing so
would be better for the child than making no order at all
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Introduced the concept of Parental Responsibility
‘All the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by
law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and its property’
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
The welfare checklist
The wishes or feelings of the child shall be considered in the light of
his age and understanding
His physical, emotional and educational needs
The likely effect upon him of any change in his circumstances
His age, sex and background
Any harm that he has suffered or is at risk of suffering
How capable key adults are in meeting his need
The range of powers available to the court
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Partnerships with families
LA obliged to safeguard the welfare of the child primarily, but
secondary obligation to promote the upbringing of such children by
their families, and to take compulsory action only when better for the
child than working under voluntary arrangements with the parents
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Private Orders
Contact Order
Prohibited Steps Order
Residence Order
Specific Issue Order
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Public Orders
Care Order
Supervision Order
Education Supervision Order
An investigation under Section 37
Child Assessment Order
Emergency Protection Order
Police Protection Order
Secure Order
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Notes
Cannot take a Care Order out if child reached 17
Care Orders result in shared PR between LA and parents but LA decides
ultimately
Care order lasts until 18
Supervision Order 1 year renewable up to three years
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Medical and psychiatric treatment under the Children Act
Court needs evidence from RMP that the child may be suffering from a
physical or mental condition that requires and may be susceptible to
treatment and that a period of residential management is required to make
the assessment
Only way that Child can get assessment or treatment under supervision or
care order is if they have capacity and give consent
Otherwise court needs to be separately approached and specify as above.
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Secure Accommodation Section 25
May place child in secure accommodation if he has a history of
absconding and is likely to abscond from any other accommodation
and that if he absconds, he is likely to suffer significant harm
Initially three months, then up to 6 months after
Very rare to get a child secured over the age of 16
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Children Act 1989 versus MHA 1983
Can do virtually the same things
So how do you chose
Separate and discuss
What is the right legislation for what problem and why
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
MHA can be used at any age but
Is it the right legislation
Ask yourself what is the primary problem, is this mental disorder intrinsic to
the child, or is this distress caused by lack of social containment and
poorly addressed developmental needs.
Either way, they may be detainable under a section 2 but what is the right
thing to do
Rule of thumb.
If intrinsic mental disorder MHA
If not Children Act
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 VERSUS MHA TRICKY CASES
14 year old.
Absconding from home in the middle of the night. Long history of
behavioural presentations to CAMHS. First presented aged 8 with self
harm. Concerns raised with social care then about the scape-goating of
the child in the family. Now admitted to Derriford after latest episode of
DSH. Ran away in the middle of the night,, assaulted by adult male, took
overdose when drunk.
Difficult to assess, refuses to participate, says she will kill herself and
provokes you by telling you that you can’t stop her leaving or taking a
further overdose. Mother appears worried and ways that she is doing
everything that she can but she has been telling everyone what a problem
the child is.
What would you do
THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 VERSUS MHA TRICKY CASES
13 year old male.
Deterioration over the last 18 months. Avoiding school and friends.
Isolates himself at home. Withdraws into his bedroom. Smokes cannabis
heavily. Has started to accuse his mother of stealing his money, and
insists that she prepares food in a particular and stereotyped way. He
keeps snakes and frequently lets them out in the middle of the night,
allowing them into his parents bedroom. When you visit to assess him he
barricades himself into his room.
What would you do
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
True or false
1.The MHA cannot be used under the age of 12
2.The Zone of Parental Control is enshrined in the Children Act
3.Article 8 of the Human Rights Act does not apply to children
4.The Concept of parental authority is codified in the MHA
5.The MHA is the only legislation that gives authority to treat children and young
people for mental disorder
6.In a 14 year old, when making decisions about consent, the wishes of the parents
prevail
7.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is enshrined in UK law
8.Section 25 of the Children Act allows for the legal detention of children