high-court-blocks-marriage-of-man-with-i

slipperyox

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-blocks-marriage-of-man-with-intellectual-disabilities-38238727.html

Why are charities in Ireland given so much credence?

having regard to the nature of the man's intellectual disability, he lacks capacity to understand what marriage is or to enter into that... the man, who has substantial assets...

Sounds like they're keeping an eye out for him, so he's not fleeced.

Blazer

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like they're keeping an eye out for him, so he's not fleeced.

Since apparently he's fairly rich they obviously don't want to lose those assets down the road if he could be persuaded to sign them over to the charity. Your one has no money so they obviously couldn't care less what she does.


Those proceedings will decide whether the man, who has substantial assets, has capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs or should be taken into wardship.
The man has lived for a number of years in a residential facility supported by the charity.

screamer

Poor guy, no mention of his wishes there. Smacks of 1950s Ireland TBH.

Poor Uncle Tom

If this man is living in care and he's getting married and possibly would have a family, who looks after them? He can't look after himself. Does his financial assets stretch to cover all that?

Isn't it only fair that the charity/group/people looking after this man should consider this?

dudara

screamer wrote: »

Poor guy, no mention of his wishes there. Smacks of 1950s Ireland TBH.

If he is not mentally capable of understanding what marriage is, and all that it entails, then it’s probably for the best in the long run. It sounds like his siblings also opposed the marriage (albeit his mother supported it).

Tough case though. You’d like to see the man happy.

Peregrinus

Blazer wrote: »

Since apparently he's fairly rich they obviously don't want to lose those assets down the road if he could be persuaded to sign them over to the charity. Your one has no money so they obviously couldn't care less what she does.


Those proceedings will decide whether the man, who has substantial assets, has capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs or should be taken into wardship.
The man has lived for a number of years in a residential facility supported by the charity.

Oh, grow up. If he can't marry, he can't make a will. The charity here is arguing that he does not have the capacity he would need to sign over his assets to them; they are hardly motivated to make that argument by the hope that he will sign his assets over to them.

Never use a conspiracy theory to explain that which can be explained without a conspiracy theory. But, in particular, never use a conspiracy theory which is obviously stupid and self-contradictory. Small children will point at you in the street and laugh. And you wouldn't want that, would you?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like they're keeping an eye out for him, so he's not fleeced.

Could be his family keeping an eye out for themselves. The woman has intellectual disabilities herself. And no one looked out to see if SHE knew what marriage meant.

And yes maybe the charity was used so it looked better. And they might be promised something.

ILoveYourVibes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, grow up. If he can't marry, he can't make a will. The charity here is arguing that he does not have the capacity he would need to sign over his assets to them; they are hardly motivated to make that argument by the hope that he will sign his assets over to them.

Never use a conspiracy theory to explain that which can be explained without a conspiracy theory. But, in particular, never use a conspiracy theory which is obviously stupid and self-contradictory. Small children will point at you in the street and laugh. And you wouldn't want that, would you?

No but the siblings could very well be and might use the charity to make it look better.

They might not admit that even to themselves though.

Phileas Frog

dudara wrote: »

albeit his mother supported it

Her mother, not his

ILoveYourVibes

He lives in a residential unit supported by the charity.

ILoveYourVibes

Blazer wrote: »

Since apparently he's fairly rich they obviously don't want to lose those assets down the road if he could be persuaded to sign them over to the charity. Your one has no money so they obviously couldn't care less what she does.


Those proceedings will decide whether the man, who has substantial assets, has capacity to make decisions about his personal and financial affairs or should be taken into wardship.
The man has lived for a number of years in a residential facility supported by the charity.

If he lives in a residential unit supported by a charity he hardly has substantial assets.

dudara

dudara wrote: »

If he is not mentally capable of understanding what marriage is, and all that it entails, then it’s probably for the best in the long run.

And thus begins a massive decline in the Irish marriage rate...

amcalester

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

If he lives in a residential unit supported by a charity he hardly has substantial assets.

It's stated in the article that he has substantial assets.

Also, it appears he doesn't want to get married either.

An advocate for the man had said the man told him last April he did not wish to be married and members of his family were concerned about undue influence and supported a wardship application, the court was also told.

Irishphotodesk

Tough one for the courts to decide, the man who it's claimed doesn't understand what marriage is, yet it's also claimed had previously told another person that he doesn't wish to wed.

An application by a charity with a vested interest to stop substantial assets from being passed to a next of kin.

Tough to get it right... I'm not saying I agree with the judgement or that I disagree with it, but it could raises a number of questions about the validity of the legal action and the motives for marriage.

ILoveYourVibes

amcalester wrote: »

Also, it appears he doesn't want to get married either.

Then what was the issue?

ILoveYourVibes

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Tough one for the courts to decide, the man who it's claimed doesn't understand what marriage is, yet it's also claimed had previously told another person that he doesn't wish to wed.

An application by a charity with a vested interest to stop substantial assets from being passed to a next of kin.

Tough to get it right... I'm not saying I agree with the judgement or that I disagree with it, but it could raises a number of questions about the validity of the legal action and the motives for marriage.

Could be they are all ashshats.

Mrs OBumble

slipperyox wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-blocks-marriage-of-man-with-intellectual-disabilities-38238727.html

Why are charities in Ireland given so much credence?

The legal status of the company which the state contracts to care for this disabled citizen is irrelevant.

Doctors have accessed that he does not have the capacity to understand what marriage means.

His contracted caregivers are responsible for taking whatever legal steps are needed to care for him, given the medical advice. That is what they are doing.

amcalester

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then what was the issue?

That he's (possibly) being coerced into getting married against his wishes. and that he's not able to understand what getting married means in the first place.

ILoveYourVibes

amcalester wrote: »

That he's (possibly) being coerced into getting married against his wishes. and that he's not able to understand what getting married means in the first place.

Maybe he is just in love.

Hannibal_Smith

Wasn't Zaponne trying to bring in some legislation for people with intellectual disabilities which would allow them to marry? What happened with that?

evil_seed

Was the thread title created by someone also with an intellectual disability? :pac:

ILoveYourVibes

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Wasn't Zaponne trying to bring in some legislation for people with intellectual disabilities which would allow them to marry? What happened with that?

Never heard about it.

ohnonotgmail

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Wasn't Zaponne trying to bring in some legislation for people with intellectual disabilities which would allow them to marry? What happened with that?

don't conflate intellectual disability with lacking mental capacity. there is obviously some overlap but the two are not the same.

bear1

I can't see the issue here.
To enter into marriage you need to be of sound mind.
It's like any contract, if it's proven that you weren't of sound mind when you entered into the contract then the contract is voided.
Same as a marriage.
I'd agree with the high court here.

ILoveYourVibes

bear1 wrote: »

I can't see the issue here.
To enter into marriage you need to be of sound mind.
It's like any contract, if it's proven that you weren't of sound mind when you entered into the contract then the contract is voided.
Same as a marriage.
I'd agree with the high court here.

I don't think it's clear cut. We don't have the right to run people's lives because they are different.

Obviously its not a clear issue and everyone will have their own opinion.

Its also not something that you can say should be the same for every situation either.

It's a grey area.

It's not black and white.

bear1

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't think it's clear cut. We don't have the right to run people's lives because they are different.

Obviously its not a clear issue and everyone will have their own opinion.

Its also not something that you can say should be the same for every situation either.

It's a grey area.

In some ways yes.
But if his disability is such that he isn't able to understand the basic principles (guessing here) then I can see why the court intervened.

ohnonotgmail

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't think it's clear cut. We don't have the right to run people's lives because they are different.

Obviously its not a clear issue and everyone will have their own opinion.

Its also not something that you can say should be the same for every situation either.

It's a grey area.

It's not black and white.

it isn't that grey at all. either a person has the capacity to make decisions for themselves or they dont. If they dont have capacity then somebody else must make decisions for them with the overview of a court.

blackwhite

dudara wrote: »

If he is not mentally capable of understanding what marriage is, and all that it entails, then it’s probably for the best in the long run. It sounds like his siblings also opposed the marriage (albeit his mother supported it).

Tough case though. You’d like to see the man happy.

It was the bride-to-be's mother who was reported as being supportive.

No mention of the man's mother at all.

Mrsmum

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Could be his family keeping an eye out for themselves. The woman has intellectual disabilities herself. And no one looked out to see if SHE knew what marriage meant.

And yes maybe the charity was used so it looked better. And they might be promised something.

It's possible the family were doing both - looking out for him and minding the money also.

I think if he wasn't able to understand the contract that marriage is, the right thing was done.

Podge_irl

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

An application by a charity with a vested interest to stop substantial assets from being passed to a next of kin.

They have no vested interests.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Could be his family keeping an eye out for themselves. The woman has intellectual disabilities herself. And no one looked out to see if SHE knew what marriage meant.

And yes maybe the charity was used so it looked better. And they might be promised something.

The charity's primary concern is obviously going to be for the individual under their care, not someone else. It is indeed mentioned in the story that her intellectual disabilities do not seem to be as severe however.

Glass fused light

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Tough one for the courts to decide, the man who it's claimed doesn't understand what marriage is, yet it's also claimed had previously told another person that he doesn't wish to wed.

An application by a charity with a vested interest to stop substantial assets from being passed to a next of kin.

Tough to get it right... I'm not saying I agree with the judgement or that I disagree with it, but it could raises a number of questions about the validity of the legal action and the motives for marriage.

The action is part of the man being made a ward of the court. If he is made a ward of the court he has no capacity to enter into legal contracts, so can not marry. Once made a ward of the court his assets and spending are the responsibility of the court.

As it stands any bank or solicitor would have to ascertain that he is capable of giving instructions, as two medical reports have been produced saying he has no capacity access to his assets is effectively blocked. There was a reported case where a person without wardship being made homeless even though they had won a court case and been awarded +100k.

It's a good reminder to anyone with a family history of illnesses which impact mental capacity (stroke, dementia, etc) to put a power of attorney in place.

ILoveYourVibes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it isn't that grey at all. either a person has the capacity to make decisions for themselves or they dont.

It's really not always that simple.

ohnonotgmail

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It's really not always that simple.

unfortunately it is. If a doctor, or doctors in this case, decides they lack capacity then somebody else has to make decisions for them.

ILoveYourVibes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unfortunately it is. If a doctor, or doctors in this case, decides they lack capacity then somebody else has to make decisions for them.

I don't know if I believe that's right. That's just the system as it is right now.

I am not talking specifically about this case though.


I am not saying i have the answer either though.

ohnonotgmail

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't know if I believe that's right. That's just the system as it is right now.

I am not talking specifically about this case though.

how else do you suggest we deal with it? let people fire ahead who dont know what they are doing and potentially ruin their life or get ripped off?

Hannibal_Smith

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

don't conflate intellectual disability with lacking mental capacity. there is obviously some overlap but the two are not the same.

I don't think I did?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Never heard about it.

Just googled it there. The right to love Bill. Don't know what happened with it.

AlanG

A lack of mental capacity is grounds to annul any contract, including marriage. If the marriage went ahead it would have been open to being challenged by interested third parties and the judge in this case ruled that as that challenge would succeed it would cause less distress for the man to just stop the marriage now.
The laws protecting those with intellectual disabilities fro being bound to contracts are there to protect people yet some on this thread seem to think they should be overturned.

slipperyox

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The legal status of the company which the state contracts to care for this disabled citizen is irrelevant.

Doctors have accessed that he does not have the capacity to understand what marriage means.

His contracted caregivers are responsible for taking whatever legal steps are needed to care for him, given the medical advice. That is what they are doing.

I bet 50 cent he was also brought to vote recently by chaperones.
Did he understand what voting was?

Unlikely.
But was allowed nevertheless.

Where were his care givers advice in this scenario?

Nobelium

dudara wrote: »

If he is not mentally capable of understanding what marriage is, and all that it entails, then it’s probably for the best in the long run.

Who is ?

Glass fused light

slipperyox wrote: »

I bet 50 cent he was also brought to vote recently by chaperones.
Did he understand what voting was?

Unlikely.
But was allowed nevertheless.

Where were his care givers advice in this scenario?

If he was brought to vote no one should have been allowed into the booth to assist him in voting.

If the staff at the station allowed that that is a failing of training and a very serious one as it is a breach of the right that every citizen has.

Blazer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, grow up. If he can't marry, he can't make a will. The charity here is arguing that he does not have the capacity he would need to sign over his assets to them; they are hardly motivated to make that argument by the hope that he will sign his assets over to them.

Never use a conspiracy theory to explain that which can be explained without a conspiracy theory. But, in particular, never use a conspiracy theory which is obviously stupid and self-contradictory. Small children will point at you in the street and laugh. And you wouldn't want that, would you?

Because obviously charities have never taken advantage of mentally ill people :rolleyes:
I seem to recall convents and churches getting old people to sign over their assets to the church etc.

AndrewJRenko

Glass fused light wrote: »

If he was brought to vote no one should have been allowed into the booth to assist him in voting.

If the staff at the station allowed that that is a failing of training and a very serious one as it is a breach of the right that every citizen has.

I don't think that is a breach of law. People with sight loss often bring someone with them to help them with their vote. One blind gent I know has a running gag with his missus about how she always votes 'her' preference on his paper while telling him that she's voting 'his' preference.


Are there different rules for people with sight lossand people with intellectual disabilities.

branie2

The judge did the right thing

slipperyox

I wonder if he was due to marry a man, would it be different outcome?:D

RobertKK

slipperyox wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-blocks-marriage-of-man-with-intellectual-disabilities-38238727.html

Why are charities in Ireland given so much credence?

A lot of charities have failed politicians so they turn charities into quangos to keep the jobs going when voted out or not voted into politics.

SEPT 23 1989

Reading between the lines is there money involved I wonder

Guy:Incognito

screamer wrote: »

Poor guy, no mention of his wishes there. Smacks of 1950s Ireland TBH.

So if he has the mental capactiy of say, a 7 year old, would you be equally concerned for the wishes of other 7 year olds that are being denied their wish to get married?

AndrewJRenko

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So if he has the mental capactiy of say, a 7 year old, would you be equally concerned for the wishes of other 7 year olds that are being denied their wish to get married?

He's an adult. Why shouldn't he get to live a life of his own choosing?


The only reason not to is that it would expose him to danger or exploitation, whether financial or otherwise. He reduced mental capacity is not a reason to block marriage on its own.

ohnonotgmail

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's an adult. Why shouldn't he get to live a life of his own choosing?


The only reason not to is that it would expose him to danger or exploitation, whether financial or otherwise. He reduced mental capacity is not a reason to block marriage on its own.

It is every reason. You must have capacity in order to make a contract. A marriage is a contract. If he cannot understand what it is he is doing then others need to make that decision for him. In this instance a judge made the decision. Correctly

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's an adult. Why shouldn't he get to live a life of his own choosing?


The only reason not to is that it would expose him to danger or exploitation, whether financial or otherwise. He reduced mental capacity is not a reason to block marriage on its own.

Reduced mental capacity is not.

However insufficient mental capacity to understand what marriage means is a totally different story.