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

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 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 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?

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.

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.

The judge did the right thing

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.

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 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

I thought the ruling by the judge showed great sympathy and commpassion - and stated that it would not prevent them having a party for theor friends and family on the named day or celebration. Marriage and its outcomes is a serious matter - that his family and he himself said he didnt want to marry speaks volumes. That and was he made a ward of court putting him outside the immediate rein of the charity who helps him with his life and day to day living -
this is adjuducated by a social worker, a case worker, another judge, family members, his doctor who knows his mefical hostory and a consultant - they can't all be wrong.

As regards the slamming of the unnamed charity in this - I find this more that a bit bandwaggony and disgusting. The majority of organisations that actually help families and those struggling with disabilities are charities and often unpaid volunteers. Try getting mental health help without involving a charity or assistance in respite care for a disabled family member without a charity involved or social or day care for someone with an intellectual disability - let alone residential care - its all charities and the fundraising of committees and decent hearted goodwilled strangers - its about time the endless charity bashing stopped. One day God forbid you may need them - and it wont be the government that helps.

JustAThought wrote: »

As regards the slamming of the unnamed charity in this - I find this more that a bit bandwaggony and disgusting. The majority of organisations that actually help families and those struggling with disabilities are charities and often unpaid volunteers. Try getting mental health help without involving a charity or assistance in respite care for a disabled family member without a charity involved or social or day care for someone with an intellectual disability - let alone residential care - its all charities and the fundraising of committees and decent hearted goodwilled strangers - its about time the endless charity bashing stopped. One day God forbid you may need them - and it wont be the government that helps.

You're probably right about the 'slamming' of the charity, but I don't think you're giving the full story here. Most of these charities are large organisations that get large amounts of Government funding to provide services that the Government chooses not to provide directly, mostly for HR and IR reasons. Most of the services are paid for by the Government, with fundraising being a fairly small part of the overall business.

BattleCorp wrote: »

He's an adult with intellectual disabilities. He can't look after himself. He needs people to look out for him to ensure that he isn't in danger or being exploited. That's what the Judge did for him. He looked out for him.

Doctors have said that the man isn't capable of making decisions like marriage, that he fully doesn't have the capacity to make those types of decisions.

Of course his reduced mental capacity is a reason for blocking this marriage. I know the modern trend is not to treat marriage very seriously but it is a very serious legal contract and if the man hasn't the understanding of such, then he shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'm all for keeping the courts out of people's lives but in cases like this, they are needed. Yes, it is sad that this man isn't being allowed to wed the woman he wants to marry, but the courts are only looking out for his wellbeing and security.

The problem here is the assumption of incapacity rather than the requirement to prove incapacity. The whole fundamental basis of the new Assisted Decision Making legislation is around assuming capacity until proved otherwise, rather than assuming that intellectual disability = no capacity. I've seen enough patronising assessments from doctors and family members that want to wrap people with ID up in cotton wool and infantalise them with lots of hugging but no right to make their own decisions.


If there is some test of capacity that applies to everyone that wants to get married, then by all means, bring it on - but to assume that an intellectual disability equates to lack of capacity us not on.

JustAThought wrote: »

As regards the slamming of the unnamed charity in this - I find this more that a bit bandwaggony and disgusting. The majority of organisations that actually help families and those struggling with disabilities are charities and often unpaid volunteers.

You are entitled to your opinion as much as those who have a low opinion of charities are entitled to have theirs.

Personally, I dislike charities because it’s very difficult to see the money given transfer to the people that require the help/assistance, charities (in general) in this country are businesses, run with the idea of creating a profit... so after costs, the profits are then distributed into the needy, which essentially means those employed and making the decisions can often spend needlessly or in the belief they are doing what is best for the charity or that investing monies will result in a larger amount to help people, never mind the dodgy practices of some charities, charity chuggers, trying to get elderly people to sign documents to take care of their pet after they pass away etc.

I may be wrong but wasn’t a charity in uk slammed a few years ago when an analysis of money showed 10p in every £1 was used for the actual purpose it was collected for, the remainder was used between admin,advertising etc. other charities tried to distance themselves.

last week there was a charity in court seeking a lotteries licence, a drinks manufacturer is paying them several thousand to use the charity to get the lottery licence, so they can run a promotion... court rejected the application at district court level, but at circuit court level ...judge granted licence, the charity will get less than 10k, the drinks company will invest around 30k.... the profit the drinks company will get from the promotion....who knows? As far as the courts are concerned, a charity applied for a lottery licence and it was granted - after the drinks company brought the matter to circuit court level.

My wife works for a charity, she has direct debits for a different charity and her logic is she can physically see the money and what it’s doing she knows the people that set up the charity and several of her family members have seen the results first hand, so she is happy with her decisions, she receives about 7-8k a year for her role within a very small charity, it’s an admin role.

As I said at the start, you are entitled to your opinion, if you find people who dislike charities disgusting, that’s fine, but allow me to have my opinion without brandishing it disgusting.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's true enough. Just as all those who rushed to assume that a person with an intellectual disability can't get married also don't know the person.
. Have you any thoughts on what kind of test would be required to ensure that all those planning to get married have the required level of understanding and capacity

nobody here knows this person. But the 2 doctors who decided that they do not have mental capacity do know them. There was no need to assume anything. we knew they did not have mental capacity. It said so in the article.