F (G) v B (J) (Orse F (J))
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr.Justice Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | [2000] IEHC 112 |
| Docket Number | 34m/1997 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 28 March 2000 |
[2000] IEHC 112
THE HIGH COURT
Between
and
Citations:
MARRIAGES (IRL) ACT 1844
J V J 1982 ILRM 263
D V C 1984 ILRM 173
K V K 1986 IR 737
M (G) (ORSE G) V G (T) UNREP LAVAN 22.11.1991 1992/3/704
C V C 1991 2 IR 300, 1991 ILRM 65
T (KW) V T (DA) 1992 2 IR 11
K (P) V N (MB) (ORSE K) UNREP SUPREME 3.4.1995 1995/3/931
O'M (M) V O'C (B) 1996 1 IR 208
S (J) V S (C) 1997 2 IR 506
REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE LAW OF NULLITY IN IRELAND PRL 5626 (1976)
Synopsis
Family Law
Family; marriage; nullity; whether contract of marriage entered into between the parties is voidable by reason of petitioner's inability to enter into or sustain a normal marriage relationship.
Held: Decree of nullity granted.
F (G) v. B (J) - High Court: Murphy J. - 28/03/2000
The petitioner sought a decree of nullity in relation to a marriage entered into with the respondent. The petitioner claimed, inter alia, that by reason his emotional immaturity, mental state and personality he had not the requisite capacity at the time of the marriage ceremony to enter into a normal marital relationship. Psychiatric evidence tendered to the court suggested that the petitioner had a personality disorder including a separation anxiety disorder. Murphy J was satisfied that the petitioner did not possess the emotional capacity to enter into a normal marital relationship with the respondent. Accordingly the petitioner had not given a fully free or informed consent to marriage. The ceremony of marriage of the parties was therefore declared null and void and the petitioner declared free of all bonds of marriage with the respondent.
Judgment of Mr.Justice Murphydelivered on the 28th day of March, 2000
On the 9th July, 1988 the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent herein was solominsed as Christ Church in the District of Dun Laoghaire in the County of Dublin under the authority of a special licence granted by his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin DD pursuant to the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844.
By petition dated the 23rd May, 1997 the Petitioner stated, inter alia, that his consent to the marriage ceremony was not a full, free and/or informed consent; further or in the alternative, prior to and at the date of the marriage ceremony, by reason of his emotional immaturity, mental state, personality, temperament and/or nature, the Petitioner had not the capacity to enter into or sustain a normal marital relationship with the Respondent.
There is one child to the marriage who was born on the 30th December, 1988. The Petitioner and the Respondent separated in or around 1993 and have not resided or cohabited together since that date. By Order of the Master of the High Court made the 25th February, 1998 the issues to be determined were listed and it was ordered that Dr, Gerry Byrne, Psychiatrist, be appointed to carry out a psychiatric rather than a physical examination of the Petitioner and also of the Respondent and to report in writing to the Court.
The net issues that come before the Court with consent of the parties are the following:-
1. Whether the Petitioner gave full, free and/or informed consent to the marriage ceremony with the Respondent;
2. Whether prior to and at the date of the marriage ceremony the Petitioner by reason of using (sic) emotional immaturity mental state, personality, temperament and/or nature had the capacity to enter into or sustain a normal marital relationship with the Respondent.
3. Whether the Petitioner was incapable of consenting to the marriage ceremony
By answer dated the 2nd March, 1998 the Respondent denies, inter alia, that the consent of the Petitioner to the marriage ceremony was not a full, free and/or informed consent;
The Respondent denies and awaits proof that prior to and of the date of the marriage ceremony, the Petitioner by reason of his emotional immaturity, mental state, personality, temperament and/or nature, had not the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal marital relationship with the Respondent whether for the reasons set out in the Petition or otherwise and the Respondent further denies that the said marriage ceremony was null and void and of no affect on that basis.
Both the Petitioner and the Respondent say that there has been no connivance or conclusion between them in any way whatsoever.
A preliminary issue arose regarding the presence of the medical examiner, Dr. Gerard Byrne while evidence was to be given by Dr. Brian O'Shea, Consultant Psychiatrist, in relation to his treatment of his Petitioner and of the Respondent. A further issue arose as to whether Dr. O'Shea's evidence should be taken before that of thePetitioner.
I directed that, as Dr. Byrne had been appointed as Medical Inspector he was entitled to be present during the evidence given by Dr. O'Shea. I also directed that it was a matter for Counsel for the Petitioner to decide as to the order of witnesses (so long as the witness confined himself to facts rather than opinions which were not adduced inevidence.)
Counsel for the Respondent objected to evidence being given in relation to her client. I directed that, as Dr. O'Shea had been subpoenaed he could be required to give evidence in relation to the Respondent as well as to the Petitioner.
In any event the issues were narrowed to those referred to above on the second day of hearing and Dr. O'Shea did not give any evidence in relation to the treatment of the Respondent.
Dr. O'Shea first saw the Petitioner on the 4th July, 1986 when he presented with panic attacks in work. He came along with hismother.
He was then unemployed having been through five previous jobs and felt that he had wasted his life.
Dr. O'Shea believed that he suffered from depersonalisation and was like an antelope incapable of responding to the presence of a lion. In relationships he was possessive, with a high need to be appreciated and with the significant separation anxiety problem he required constantavailability.
His negative feelings about himself were substantiated by observation of Dr. O'Shea.
He was seen by Dr. Timms, Dr. Matthews and Dr. Stokes who were part of Dr. O'Shea's team and he agreed with her diagnosis of personality disorder and that the Petitioner was compulsively obsessive.
Pharmacological interventions such as antidepressants and benzodiaspines made little difference and he had a poor tolerance to Prozac.
The Petitioner attended Dr. O'Shea on the 16th October, 1988, three months after his marriage; he attended twice in 1989 and his last visit was on the 21st September, 1993. In 1995 there were three telephone conversations between the Petitioner and Dr. O'Shea.
In relation to this marriage he told Dr. O'Shea that he was being sucked into a situation that he couldn't handle and that his wife knocked the confidence out of him and that there were fighting all the time. As time went on this was affecting their daughter.
In relation to his work he told Dr. O'Shea that his boss did not wanthim.
Dr. O'Shea believed that the basic problem with the Petitioner wasthat;
He was a very insecure person;
He suffered from anxiety and depression;
He had an obsessive personality disorder;
He suffered from separation anxiety.
Dr. O'Shea believed that such problems normally resolved themselves at adolescence but did not happen in the case of the Petitioner.
There was a disparity between the emotional development and the logical development. The Petitioner was not capable of viewing his life partner as a separate individual. There was no mutuality in the relationship. While the Petitioner had an intellectual insight into this condition he did not have control over his emotions. He was drawn by an immature set of emotions.
In relation to the Petitioners ability to sustain marriage. Dr. O'Shea believed that it would be extremely difficult. Problems such as those referred to above tend to erode whatever relationship there is. It would need a "perfect" partner, a mother figure who was constantly available.
The general impression of Dr. O'Shea is given in his report to the medical inspector as follows:-
"This very immature man suffers from a personality disorder with low self esteem, obsesionality, fantasies of being very important (by way of over compensation), with periods of anxiety and a "reactive" depression. He probably also has separation anxiety disorders. His occupational history has been ratherchaotic.
I do not believe that he was capable of emotionally viewing a potential life partner as a separate individual, and as such was not capable of entering into a valid matrimonial contract."
The Petitioner is now thirty five years of age. He feels he was denigrated by his father and developed a strong bond with hismother.
In relation to school he was average, drifting along and missed school staying at home when he was not feeling well.
At mid teens he says that the began "drinking to bedrunk". He passed the leaving certificate and without focus or without a plan, worked in shops from time to time he dispersed withunemployment.
When he was twenty or twenty one he went out with a student but felt uneasy with her friends and possessive of her.
A year later the student told him that he was pregnant and was having an abortion. This created a moral problem for him. He was distressed. His anxiety intensified. He had panic attacks. At one stage he got off the bus and felt like a rabbit caught in its headlights. He told his parents. His mother was distressed, his father seemed indifferent.
He agreed with Dr. O'Shea's evidence regarded the personlisation. His feelings seemed to wash over him: he cried a lot. He drank until he was drunk, gave up work felt a bleak...
To continue reading
Request your trial