Residential care centre sought a declaration that one of its residents lacked the capacity to consent to marriage
A couple with intellectual disabilities will be able to marry, following a decision of Judge Geoffrey Shannon in the Circuit Civil Court that will have profound implications for other intellectually challenged people.
Judge Shannon on Monday threw out an application by a residential care centre which sought a declaration that one of its residents, now in his 40s, lacked the capacity to consent to marriage.
He and his long-term girlfriend and partner, who have been in a loving relationship for two decades, will be the first intellectually challenged couple to take advantage of Judge Shannon's ruling. They have said they will marry soon.
The couple, who cannot legally be identified, had already celebrated their relationship by exchanging personal vows in a mock wedding after the High Court, several years ago, temporarily blocked the prospective groom, as a ward of court, from getting married.
The man challenged the residential centre's application and his girlfriend joined him as a notice party to the proceedings which were heard under the recently amended Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act.
"They have been in a relationship which all who know them have described as a partnership of genuine love, mutual support and enduring commitment and they have consistently expressed a wish to marry," Judge Shannon said in a judgment that will have implications for other intellectually challenged people who wish to marry.
The judge said the law presumed capacity, and the burden of proving otherwise rested with the party asserting incapacity, on the balance of probabilities. The residential centre had sought a declaration that the man lacked capacity even with the assistance of a suitable co-decision maker.
The judge said the Act introduced a significant shift in the legal treatment of capacity in Ireland, including its application to marriage, establishing a mechanism whereby objections to a proposed marriage on the grounds of capacity had to be supported by a declaration from the Circuit Court.
"The effect of these provisions is to create a statutory impediment to marriage where a declaration of incapacity has been made, replacing a previous blanket prohibition," Judge Shannon said.
He said the court's role was to determine whether such a declaration was warranted and in doing so the court had to balance the protection of vulnerable individuals with the constitutional and convention-based rights to marry and to private and family life.
Judge Shannon said one consultant psychiatrist, called on behalf of the residential centre had concluded that the man in the case lacked the capacity to consent to marriage and, further, had stated there was no remedy available to alter that position.
A psychiatric expert, for the prospective groom, had also concluded that he did not have the capacity to marry while other assessments had produced differing views.
He said that during the hearing he had taken the opportunity to speak privately and informally with the couple, not to receive sworn testimony or formal evidence but to hear directly from the individuals in a manner that was respectful, accessible and pressure free.
"While I do not propose to comment on the content of those conversations I wish to record that the opportunity to speak directly with both parties was of significant benefit ... enriching and illuminating ... and adding a valuable dimension to the court's understanding," he said.
He said the couple had been in a committed relationship for over 20 years, a relationship that had endured a period of litigation during which they had consistently expressed a mutual wish to marry. He was satisfied this was a long-standing, loving and resilient relationship that had been thoroughly tested over time. The depth and sincerity of the commitment of both had not been in dispute.
The court was mindful that the very onerous task of assessments by the experts had been undertaken in the absence of judicial precedent or settled guidance on the threshold for the capacity to marry.
Judge Shannon said that notwithstanding the commendable efforts of the experts, the court was not satisfied that the assessments complied with statutory requirements under the Act.
"There is no indication that the man was given repeated opportunities to learn about marriage, to receive information in varied formats or to have his understanding tested over time," Judge Shannon said.
He found that there was no direct or reliable evidence of coercion, manipulation or undue influence and his wish to marry appeared to be genuine, enduring and freely expressed.
Judge Shannon said he court was satisfied that the presumption of capacity had not been rebutted and the making of a declaration to the contrary would constitute a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the constitutional and human rights of both the man and the woman in this case. He refused to make the declaration sought by the residential centre.
"In matters as intimate and constitutionally protected as the right to marry, the court must apply the law in a manner that safeguards against exclusion and affirms personal agency. The law must protect, but it must also empower," he said.