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

JustAThought

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.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Reduced mental capacity is not.

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

There's an awful lot of marrying people that don't have intellectual disabilities that would fail a test on 'what marriage means'. If we're going to require people to know 'what marriage means', then we need a test for everybody, like the driving test perhaps.

AndrewJRenko

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

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.

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.

AndrewJRenko

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.

BattleCorp

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

It's not quite a blind assumption though, is it? A psychiatric report and then psychology reports both concluded that the man lacked the capacity to enter into marriage. The man's siblings also thought the same.

And even though you are giving out about doctors and family members assuming that individuals with intellectual disability lack the capacity to get married, you don't know the individual involved in this case and you are assuming that he has the capacity to get married.

In some cases an intellectual disability does equate to a lack of capacity. It doesn't mean that they have no rights, it just means that sometimes others have to look out for them to ensure that they don't end up in a vulnerable position.

Irishphotodesk

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

BattleCorp wrote: »

you don't know the individual involved in this case and you are assuming that he has the capacity to get married.

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

ohnonotgmail

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.

BattleCorp

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

I doubt the psychiatrist and psychologist and the man's family rushed to judgement on the issue. The psychiatrist and psychologist would have interviewed the man, examined his case history etc. They didn't make their decisions based on limited information on the internet. I'm fairly sure the man's family would have known him too.

I'm not assuming anything about the man. I'm not saying that the man doesn't have the capacity to get married as I don't know him but I'm happy to accept the judgement of medical professionals on the matter.

I'm neither a psychiatrist or a psychologist but I'm pretty sure that they would have ways of testing a person's mental capacity. They are medical professionals after all. So whatever testing the doctor/psychologist did, that testing established that the man didn't have the capacity to consent to marriage.

Regarding testing, I am happy to assume that people have the capacity to consent to marriage unless it is established that they lack capacity. For people with intellectual disability, one example of testing is the NHS Mental Capacity Assessment Tool, the guidance document for which I have posted a link to below.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjb0LPx7IHjAhUIbcAKHZXMClsQFjABegQICxAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scie.org.uk%2Ffiles%2Fmca%2Fdirectory%2Fmca-tailored-for-you%2Fhealth%2Fpan-london-commissioner-toolkit%2Fbeh-capacity-assessment-tool-guidance.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0JCx6wwd-VV2bIxi4_R526

JustAThought

The man himself also confided in a friend that he did not want to get married. Isn't that enough? No doubt the also intellectually disabled bride and her mother were super-enthuiastic but we all know people who got steamrolled or eent along with something they were unhappy with. Surely a lifelong commitment and marriage should not be one of these :especially when the pressurised groom is saying in advance that hedoes not want to be married.

AndrewJRenko

JustAThought wrote: »

The man himself also confided in a friend that he did not want to get married. Isn't that enough? No doubt the also intellectually disabled bride and her mother were super-enthuiastic but we all know people who got steamrolled or eent along with something they were unhappy with. Surely a lifelong commitment and marriage should not be one of these :especially when the pressurised groom is saying in advance that hedoes not want to be married.

No, a 'hearsay' statement from a friend really isn't enough. If that's enough, you're creating a situation where any friend can make up any statement to maintain control over a person with an intellectual disability.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I doubt the psychiatrist and psychologist and the man's family rushed to judgement on the issue. The psychiatrist and psychologist would have interviewed the man, examined his case history etc. They didn't make their decisions based on limited information on the internet. I'm fairly sure the man's family would have known him too.

I'm not assuming anything about the man. I'm not saying that the man doesn't have the capacity to get married as I don't know him but I'm happy to accept the judgement of medical professionals on the matter.

I'm neither a psychiatrist or a psychologist but I'm pretty sure that they would have ways of testing a person's mental capacity. They are medical professionals after all. So whatever testing the doctor/psychologist did, that testing established that the man didn't have the capacity to consent to marriage.

Regarding testing, I am happy to assume that people have the capacity to consent to marriage unless it is established that they lack capacity. For people with intellectual disability, one example of testing is the NHS Mental Capacity Assessment Tool, the guidance document for which I have posted a link to below.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

I've seen enough cases of psychiatrists and psychologists making limiting assessments on people with intellectual disabilities. I've seen assessments stating that the person could never live independently with appropriate supports, or that the person could never have productive employment, where the person has gone on to prove those assessments to be way wrong.



Assessments can often be ultra conservative, and can reflect as much about the person's personal prejudices as they reflect clinical assessments.


I've seen families who, at best, have been conditioned by a lifetime of dealing with professional to have the lowest possible expectations, and at worst, are keen to retain the cash cow of regular disability allowance and carers allowance coming in to the family.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Regarding testing, I am happy to assume that people have the capacity to consent to marriage unless it is established that they lack capacity. For people with intellectual disability, one example of testing is the NHS Mental Capacity Assessment Tool, the guidance document for which I have posted a link to below.

This ignores the issue of the many people of low IQ levels that live independent lives and will never have been assessed for 'capacity'. It's a bit of a 'see no evil' approach.

Odhinn

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?

It's not just the charity saying. From your article above

A psychiatric report last month which concluded the man lacked capacity to marry followed reports by psychologists last March also deeming him to lack capacity.

ohnonotgmail

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, a 'hearsay' statement from a friend really isn't enough. If that's enough, you're creating a situation where any friend can make up any statement to maintain control over a person with an intellectual disability.





I've seen enough cases of psychiatrists and psychologists making limiting assessments on people with intellectual disabilities. I've seen assessments stating that the person could never live independently with appropriate supports, or that the person could never have productive employment, where the person has gone on to prove those assessments to be way wrong.



Assessments can often be ultra conservative, and can reflect as much about the person's personal prejudices as they reflect clinical assessments.

complains about hearsay and then introduces hearsay.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've seen families who, at best, have been conditioned by a lifetime of dealing with professional to have the lowest possible expectations, and at worst, are keen to retain the cash cow of regular disability allowance and carers allowance coming in to the family.

this is nothing to do with the expectations of family. The decision is based on the professional judgement of multiple professionals. Who else do you think should make this decision?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This ignores the issue of the many people of low IQ levels that live independent lives and will never have been assessed for 'capacity'. It's a bit of a 'see no evil' approach.

irrelevant. this person was assessed for capacity and was found not to possess it