Daughter taken from woman with ‘shattered’ personalities

Court told mother’s mind had fragmented and she leaves notes for ‘next’ personality

Woman said her daughter ‘has five personalities as main carers and all are very unified for her’
Woman said her daughter ‘has five personalities as main carers and all are very unified for her’

The daughter of a woman in Northern Ireland whose mind "shattered" into multiple personalities after being sexually abused in her own childhood is to be taken into care, a High Court judge has ordered.

Mr Justice O’Hara ruled that the step was necessary due to the real and serious risk of harm to the two-year-old girl as her mother switches from one identity to another.

In one episode last year the woman, referred to as P, tried to hang herself while she was looking after her child, identified only as M.

Deciding such interference with their human rights was unavoidable, the judge set out how the little girl would find it emotionally confusing to see her mother’s personality alter between that of a four-year-old, a teenager and a woman in her 20s.

READ MORE

He said: “This is not a fanciful description of what can happen – it is the reality of P’s life, caused overwhelmingly by the sordid conduct and abuse by others which leaves her in my judgment, for the present at least, unable to care for M.”

The woman, now aged 26, suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Although now separated from M’s father, she is again pregnant by him.

In December last year a Health and Social Care Trust involved in the case removed the girl from P after she attempted suicide. Following that intervention it went to court seeking a care order for M.

The application was opposed by P, who claimed the move was unjustified and argued it was wrong to deprive the child of the care of a mother who has never harmed her.

However, M’s father backed proposals for his mother and stepfather to become her primary carers. Assessments carried out by experts in personality disorders agreed that P is deeply affected by her psychiatric condition.

One psychologist concluded that her DID is the product of severe, recurrent childhood trauma at the hands of a number of sexual abusers, the court heard. In a newly published judgment, Mr Justice O’Hara said: “In an effort to cope with this abuse her mind has shattered into fragmented states or personalities.”

She can suffer amnesia and switch from one identity to another with regularity. As part of efforts to cope P has tried to develop a pattern of leaving notes for the next personality to be informed by.

Some of her identities can be young girls under 10, or teenagers with different behaviour patterns.

Therapeutic intervention for someone like her takes a minimum of five years, according to the expert evidence. Even then, some patients do not revert to a single personality.

Despite the fact M has never been physically harmed by her mother, a psychologist in the case was clear that she is at significant ongoing risk. She emphasised that nobody knows what goes on in P’s mind as she switches between personalities.

The possibility of P being contacted by one of her abusers was said to be a major concern.

With Mr Justice O’Hara deciding it is likely to take years of “emotionally exhausting, painful and difficult therapy” before P can be considered as a full-time carer, he said he was satisfied the grandparents can provide a stable and secure home for M.

He added: “Sadly within her evidence she herself expressed exactly what the problem is without realising it when she said M ‘has five personalities as main carers and all are very unified for her’.

“I do not suggest that she would deliberately harm M physically, but there is a clear and substantial risk of such harm as she switches from one identity or alters to another one such as a child under 10.”

The judge held: “I regret that a care order is inescapable in all the circumstances.”

As part of his judgment he also directed that mother and daughter should at first continue to have weekly contact.

He said: “I find that a reduction to less than once per week would be an excessive and unjustified interference with the rights of this family.”