Evaluation of the facts referred to Akdeniz University For Restriction or Limitation of Civil Rights (Legal guardianship and legal advisor) between 2016-2020

Restriction or limitation of civil rights is the transfer of the authority to exercise civil rights to a natural (physical) person appointed by the court, partially (trustee, legal advisor) or completely (legal guardianship). In addition, there are options for compulsory hospitalization and treatment for people who pose a danger to the society and/or for whom it is decided that routine restraint methods such as the appointment of legal counsel and guardian are not sufficient. In our study, the reports of 482 cases referred by judicial authorities with the request of restriction of their civil rights between January 01, 2016 and December 31, 2020 were examined retrospectively. In the study, it is aimed to evaluate the features such as age, gender, medical diagnosis and clinical conditions stated in the report, restriction decision and restriction level of the cases referred with the request of restriction of their civil rights, and compare the results with the sources. While 21 of the 482 cases included in the study had previously been restricted in their civil rights and were referred for reassessment of the need for restriction; 461 of them were sent for the first time to restrict their civil rights. In 42 (%9.1) of 461 cases sent to evaluate whether the restriction was appropriate, they were also asked whether it was necessary to restrict their freedom for the purpose of protection within the scope of article 432 of the Turkish Civil Law. The number of the cases was 55 (%11.4) in 2016, 62 (%12.9) in 2017, 87 (%18.1) in 2018, 126 (%26.1) in 2019 and 152 in 2020 (%31.5); it has been determined that the number tends to increase year by year. Of the 461 cases referred for evaluation the need for restrictionfor the first time, 249 (%54) were male and 212 (%46) were female, with a mean age of 48.8±21.07 years. When the cases are examined according to age groups; there were 4 cases (%0.9) under the age of 18, 340 cases (%73.8) between the ages of 18-64 (including the 18th and 64th years), and 117 cases (%25.3) aged 65 and over. In order of the authorities requesting reports most frequently; civil courts of peace (n=277, %60.2), family courts (n=124, %26.9) and Public Prosecutor's Offices (n=53, %11.5).In all of the cases, it was asked whether a guardian should be appointed in the court order, and it was also asked whether a legal counselor should be appointed in only 30 (%6,5) cases and whether a trustee should be appointed in 2 (%0,4) cases. It was observed that the reason for the restriction request was not stated in 351 (%76.1) of the cases, while it was stated in 110 (%23.9) cases. It was determined that the most frequently stated reasons in the court order were divorce cases (n=43, %9,4), custody cases (n=11, %2,4), divorce+custody cases (n=35, %7,6). It was decided that there was no need to restrict the person in 210 (%45,6) cases, that it was appropriate to assign a guardian to the person in 179 (%38,9) cases, that it was appropriate to assign a legal advisor to the person in 37 (%8) cases, and in 35 (%7,5) cases the restriction status could not be decided, in the records. When all age groups are examined, the most common causes of restriction are; dementia (n=47, %10.2), psychotic disorders (n=54, %11.7), trauma-induced intracranial bleeding and strokes (n=41, %8.9), mental retardation (n=31, %6.7), bipolar disorder (n=28, %6.1) and alcohol and/or substance use disorders (n=27, %5.9). While dementia and stroke come to the forefront as the reason for limitation in geriatric age group; psychiatric diseases and intracranial hemorrhages due to trauma were observed to be prominent in the active working age group. When the cases referred for the re-evaluation of the restriction situation were examined; out of 18 cases, for which a report was prepared that it would be appropriate to appoint a guardian beforehand, the necessity of restriction was eliminated in 7 (%38.9) cases, the need for a guardian continued in 8 (%44.4) cases, and it was decided that the appointment of a consultant was appropriate in 3 (%16.7) cases; it is recorded that out of 3 cases in which it was previously decided that the appointment of a legal advisor was appropriate, the necessity of restriction was removed in 1 of them, and it was decided that the appointment of a guardian was appropriate in 2 of them. Of the cases requested to be evaluated in terms of compulsory hospitalization and treatment; it was determined that 14 (%33.3) of them were found to be appropriate to restrict their freedom under article 432 of Turkish Civil Law, while 28 (%66.7) did not need to be restricted under article 432 of Turkish Civil Law. Reports on the restriction of civil rights have very important consequences for the person to whom the report is drawn, since they limit the legal capacity. For this reason, there is a need to ensure standardization so that the same restriction decision can be made to people under the same conditions and with the same findings, regardless of the place where the report is issued and the physicians who issue it. In this regard, the writs and annexes of the judicial body regarding the restriction request; it should be considered as a first step that the request contains sufficient and appropriate information about the person, the reason for the request and the expectations. On the other hand, since physicians have to make restriction decisions using their experiences and opinions they deem most appropriate, there is a need to create guiding and detailed guides in order to prevent the emergence of different practices in different centers, especially on the legal basis. Key Words: Legal capacity, Legal guardianship, Legal advisor, Compulsory hospitalization