Good day all, I understand that a NR can object to a s3 and the NR can be displaced if the AMHP is of the view that they are being unreasonable by disagreeing. Can anyone please explain if there are any particular factors / criteria the AMHP considers to assist them in coming to this determination? How do they conclude the NR is being unreasonable before they decide to displace them ? Thank you all.
Semantic point here, but just to be clear the decision to displace the NR (or appoint an acting NR to be precise) is made by a judge in the County Court, on evidence of the AMHP. So it’s not simply the determination of the AMHP.
To answer the question, from my experience as an AMHP, it’s about the likely risk of failure to detain (or continue to detain). For example, does the NR have a credible alternative to support the individual in their mental health crisis? Does the NR believe or understand the degree of risk to their relative (or to others)? Is it the view of the AMHP that the NR has some ulterior motive for objecting, which is not in the patient’s interests? These are just examples, and the decision will be based on the individual circumstances of the case.
Thank you Steve, that is most helpful and I should have worded my question more clearly. Is there a particular checklist you refer to or is it based on discussions with the team etc ?
I never used a formal checklist and I was never aware of anyone else using one. As you will be aware, the decision to make an application sits with the AMHP personally (Code 5.15), but the AMHP will inevitably consult with other team members before coming to a decision.
Thank you, Steve.
Section 29 (2) of the Mental Health Act states that
An approved mental health professional, the patient; any relative of the patient;
any other person with whom the patient is residing (or, if the patient is then an in-patient in a hospital, was last residing before he was admitted) can apply to the County Court on the following grounds (Section 29 (3))
(a)that the patient has no nearest relative within the meaning of this Act, or that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has such a relative, or who that relative is;
(b)that the nearest relative of the patient is incapable of acting as such by reason of mental disorder or other illness;
(c)that the nearest relative of the patient unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment or a guardianship application in respect of the patient;
(d)that the nearest relative of the patient has exercised without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public his power to discharge the patient under this Part of this Act, or is likely to do so or
(e)that the nearest relative of the patient is otherwise not a suitable person to act as such.
If the application is made by an approved mental health professional, they should nominate a suitable person who is willing to act as the acting nearest relative if the application is successful.
1 Like
I am using objecting Section 3 for my daughter as I want a Tribunal which can be a good thing I’ve been told.
Section 29 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is what I use if I am considering an objection by the NR to a s.3.
- The patient has no nearest relative within the meaning of s.26; or that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has such a relative or who that relative is.
- That the Nearest relative of the patient is incapable of acting as such by reason of mental disorder or other illness.
- That the nearest relative of the patient unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment (s.3).
- That the nearest relative of the patient has exercised without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public their power to discharge the patient or is likely to do so.
- That the nearest relative of the patient is otherwise not a suitable person to act as the nearest relative for the patient.