Preventing A Predatory Marriage

Protected parties who lack capacity are often at risk of financial abuse, and there has been some media attention on the most harrowing examples. Happily, in one recent case, the Court of Protection intervened to prevent a Protected Party from falling prey to an opportunistic individual who was seeking to exploit her financially.

Re: BU [2021] EWCOP 54

Case details

In the above case, the Protected Party was in her 70s and suffered from vascular dementia. For several years, she had been in a relationship with a Man in his 40s who had previous convictions for dishonesty and blackmail. He had also attempted to acquire a fund owned by the Protected Party worth £700,000.

The Protected Party’s Daughter was very concerned. Her Mother appeared to want to be in the relationship with the Man in question, but after he had attempted to acquire one of her Mother’s funds, the Daughter became convinced that he was financially motivated. She brought an application in the Court of Protection and sought the following orders:

• An order that her Mother lacked the capacity to make decisions about contact with others;
• An order restricting her contact with the Man in question; and
• A forced marriage protection order.

The latter order was sought as the Daughter feared that her Mother would be coerced into marrying the Man, which would trigger various legal consequences including his right to inherit from the Protected Party on her death (the reason being that marriage in most circumstances invalidates a Will).

There have been examples of people coercing vulnerable adults into marriage, with the sole intention of profiting financially at the expense of the protected party and his/her beneficiaries. This is known as predatory marriage and is often accompanied by behaviour such as isolating the protected party from his/her friends and family.

What did the Court decide?

The Court found in this case that the Protected Party did lack the capacity to make decisions about contact with others and ordered that there would be no contact with her Partner. The Judge found that he had “engaged in a deliberate and calculated attempt to subvert any independent decision-making”, echoing the Daughter’s view that he was coercive. The Court made a 12-month forced marriage protection order and ordered that the Protected Party would undergo therapy during that period. A deputy was also appointed to ensure that the Partner could not control her finances.

Comment

In this particular case, the action of the Protected Party’s Daughter was vital – she recognised the danger posed to her Mother and the Court of Protection acted decisively to protect her. This is, sadly, not always the case. In a limited number of cases, the protected party is not always found to lack the capacity to make decisions about contact, marriage, or living arrangements, even if they lack the capacity to administer their finances.

Recently, it was reported in the national press that the Mother of Daphne Franks fell victim to such a predator, who lured her Mother with poetry, married her in secret, managed to isolate her from her family, and coached her Mother to say the right things when the authorities investigated. When Ms Franks’ Mother died, she was buried by her Husband in an unmarked grave. The story was utterly devastating but perhaps emphasises that a change in the law may be needed so that a Will is not automatically revoked by marriage which could minimise the possibility of this type of abuse occurring.