Psych Vivas · Forensic psychiatry — civil
Civil forensic psychiatry — structured clinical viva
Fellowship viva on testamentary and financial capacity, guardianship principles, functional capacity standards, dual-role ethics, and civil report structure without invented statutes.
On this page & tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretation
Frame. This is civil forensic work: multiple decisions (will; complex investments; possible substitute decision-making). Vascular cognitive impairment raises risk but does not equal global incapacity. Assess each decision against the relevant legal principles for the jurisdiction — name principles, do not invent Act sections.[1][5]
Testamentary. Apply Banks v Goodfellow teaching principles with teach-back on will nature/effect, property in broad terms, natural objects of bounty, and absence of disordered motivation poisoning the gift. Document MSE and collateral.[2][3]
Financial. Domain-map: everyday transactions, bills, assets, gifts, investments, scam vulnerability. Complex portfolio management may fail while simple bill-paying remains — partial capacity is common and important.[3][4]
Guardianship interface. Opine domain-by-domain with residual abilities and less-restrictive supports; avoid a single pejorative “incompetent” stamp. Local pathways for financial management orders are jurisdiction-specific.[5]
Appelbaum–Grisso / MacCAT-T. Understanding, appreciation, reasoning, expressing a choice is the functional scaffold for many civil decisions; MacCAT-T is most validated for treatment decisions as an adjunct, not a court substitute.[6][7]
Dual role. If treating doctor, disclose conflict: therapeutic alliance vs expert neutrality. Prefer independent expert when contested; if unavoidable, state dual role and limits clearly.[8][9]
Report. Questions separated; sources; role; history; MSE; criterion-linked opinions; limitations; no invented statutes.[8][9]
Escalation questions (examiner probes)
Examiner probes typically stress-test property-limb gaps under Banks v Goodfellow principles, retrospective reconstruction after death, undue-influence risk factors versus incapacity, whether imaging refusal blocks a functional opinion, and job-specific fitness versus household financial capacity.[1][2][5]
- She gives a lucid explanation of the will but cannot list her major assets — how does that map to Banks v Goodfellow principles?
- How would your method change if asked retrospectively after her death?
- Son alleges the new neighbour is unduly influencing her — what clinical risk factors matter, and how is that different from incapacity?
- She refuses a CT brain — does that prevent a capacity opinion?
- Employer later asks if she is fit to continue as company director — how does that differ from financial capacity at home?
Reveal probe keys
- Property limb weak; may lack capacity for that will despite understanding will formalities — document specifically.[2]
- Reconstruct from contemporaneous notes, drafts, witnesses; state uncertainty if records poor.[2][3]
- Isolation, dependence, sudden change, unnatural beneficiary — separate theory from capacity; both can be discussed.[4][5]
- Imaging adjunctive; functional interview can still proceed; note limitations and medical differential incompleteness.[8]
- Fitness for director role = job-specific demands, governance risk, and function — related but not identical to household financial capacity.[1][5]
References
- [1]Samuels AH Civil forensic psychiatry - Part 1: an overview Australas Psychiatry, 2018.PMID 29400548
- [2]Aravind H, Taylor M, Gill N Evaluation of testamentary capacity: A systematic review Int J Law Psychiatry, 2024.PMID 38422563
- [3]Sousa LB, Simões MR, Firmino H, et al. Financial and testamentary capacity evaluations: procedures and assessment instruments underneath a functional approach Int Psychogeriatr, 2014.PMID 24229806
- [4]Sudo FK, Laks J Financial capacity in dementia: a systematic review Aging Ment Health, 2017.PMID 27647045
- [5]Roof JG Testamentary capacity and guardianship assessments Psychiatr Clin North Am, 2012.PMID 23107570
- [6]Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill-Fotouhi C The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions Psychiatr Serv, 1997.PMID 9355168
- [7]Grisso T, Appelbaum PS Comparison of standards for assessing patients' capacities to make treatment decisions Am J Psychiatry, 1995.PMID 7793439
- [8]Glancy GD, Ash P, Bath EP, et al. AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 2015.PMID 26054704
- [9]Samuels AH Civil Forensic Psychiatry - part 3: practical aspects of managing a medico-legal practice Australas Psychiatry, 2018.PMID 29457467