Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Mental illness should never be a courtroom gimmick. But too often, it becomes one. In both psychiatry and law, the line between explanation and excuse is razor-thin, writes Rebecca Ward, MBA.
It only takes a moment to label someone. A glance at the chart. A casual phrase in a courtroom. “Schizophrenic.” “Borderline.” “Narcissist.” But that single word, sometimes right, often wrong, can follow someone for life, impacting not only their identity but how they’re treated by clinicians, employers, courts, and even family. And unlike a broken leg, which heals cleanly and without judgment, a psychiatric diagnosis often leaves a stain.
The stickiness of a label
While the DSM-5 claims to be a clinical tool, its labels have social and legal consequences. A diagnosis can justify access to services, yes, but it can also justify exclusion, restriction, and surveillance. And the problem compounds when the diagnosis is incorrect, exaggerated, or used outside its intended context.
In legal settings, psychiatric terms are often wielded as shorthand: “He’s a narcissist,” meaning unfit parent. “She’s bipolar,” meaning an unreliable witness. But courts aren’t psychiatric wards, and judges aren’t psychiatrists. When clinical terms become rhetorical weapons, due process erodes.
Misdiagnosis is not rare, and it matters
A growing body of research shows that misdiagnosis is not an anomaly. One 2019 study found that nearly 40 per cent of patients referred to psychiatric services were given a different diagnosis than their GP had recorded. In women and minority populations, the rates are even higher. The same woman might be labelled “hysterical” in one setting, “borderline” in another, and simply “grieving” in a third.
These diagnostic swings are not benign. They influence court outcomes in child custody battles, insurance claims, and even criminal sentencing. A label becomes a lens through which all future behaviour is viewed, sometimes irrevocably.
Labels that outlive their purpose
Psychiatric diagnoses are supposed to evolve. They’re provisional, subject to review. But in reality, once a label appears on paper, it often becomes permanent. A teenager mislabelled with a conduct disorder might carry that stigma well into adulthood, despite stabilising, maturing, or being misdiagnosed in the first place.
And because mental health records are increasingly digital and shared, the diagnosis becomes sticky, hard to question, harder to remove. Future clinicians may be more likely to confirm the previous label than challenge it, a phenomenon known as “diagnostic anchoring”.
Ethics, consent, and power imbalance
Consent to labels is rarely informed. Patients often don’t know what’s being written in their file, let alone how those words may affect their future. Labels are sometimes given without a full assessment or based on a single session. Worse still, some diagnoses are handed out for convenience, used to justify medication, funding, or discharge.
This becomes an ethical issue when the person being diagnosed is in a vulnerable state, unable to advocate for themselves, or unaware of the long-term implications. Power is not just in the hands of the diagnostician; it’s in the system that interprets, shares, and enforces that label.
Intersection with the law
In family law, particularly parenting matters, psychiatric labels can dominate proceedings. A mother labelled as “borderline” may be viewed as emotionally volatile, regardless of her actual parenting behaviours. A father described as having “narcissistic traits” might have his credibility questioned, even without a formal diagnosis.
These terms, while clinically imprecise in forensic settings, carry immense persuasive power in court. And they can overshadow objective evidence, turning nuanced family dynamics into black-and-white battles over perceived pathology. This dynamic was observed in Re T & N [2020] FamCA 634, where psychiatric characterisations were challenged as lacking forensic rigour, yet still influenced interim custody decisions. The court ultimately cautioned against overreliance on therapeutic labels in evidentiary settings.
A call for forensic rigour
If psychiatric labels are to be used in legal contexts, then the standards of forensic rigour must apply. That means full assessments, transparent methodologies, and clear limitations. A diagnosis made during a single one-hour session is not evidence. Nor is a therapist’s note used outside its intended therapeutic context.
For lawyers, the key question should always be: How was this label determined? By whom? With what data?
Label, but label wisely
Psychiatric diagnoses are not inherently bad. They can guide treatment, validate distress, and help people find community. But they must be used responsibly. When a diagnosis becomes a weapon or a crutch, when it replaces evidence rather than supports it, everyone suffers.
In both psychology and law, the guiding principle should be the same: caution in the face of power. A diagnosis may explain behaviour, but it does not excuse assumptions. And no one should be punished for a label they never agreed to, didn’t understand, or didn’t need in the first place.
Rebecca Ward is an MBA-qualified management consultant with a focus on mental health. She is the managing director of Barristers’ Health, which supports the legal profession through management consulting and psychotherapy. Barristers’ Health was founded in memory of her brother, Steven Ward, LLB.
