Court rules woman with dementia can have sex with but not marry man
NEW YORK: A 69-year-old woman with dementia is allowed to have sex with another care home resident – but cannot marry him, a judge has ruled.
Council social services had sought a court judgement after the woman expressed a ‘desire to have sexual relations’ with the man over the course of many months.
After a psychiatrist examined the woman – asking questions to test her knowledge of intercourse – Mr Justice Poole said she was able to make decisions about ‘engagement in sexual relations’.
But he ruled that she was not mentally capable of deciding whether or not to wed the man and lacked understanding of potential financial and litigation issues that could arise through marriage.
The London-based judge published his ruling today following a recent hearing at the Court of Protection.
He said it was regrettable that delay in resolving the case had prevented the woman, who cannot be identified, from ‘sharing intimacy’ with the man.
In making his ruling, Mr Justice Warby considered the report from the psychiatrist, who said the dementia sufferer had a ‘blunt conversational style’.
The psychiatrist said he had apologised for asking ’embarrassing questions’ but the woman had told him to ‘just get on and ask me the questions…’
He said: ‘I asked whether she thought she was at risk of becoming pregnant.
‘She laughed and said “I’m too old. There’s just as much a chance of him becoming pregnant as me”, and laughed again.’
The psychiatrist said the woman had demonstrated a basic understanding of the ‘nature and mechanics of sexual intercourse’, and of consent.
She also understood there was a risk in her contracting a sexually transmitted disease. The psychiatrist added: ‘She said, “I have never had it and I don’t want it.”
‘Asked how she could protect herself, she said “by not having it”. When asked what else could be done, she said, “wearing a condom”.’
Mr Justice Poole was convinced the woman was capable of making the decision whether or not to have sexual relations.
But he ruled that she lacked mental capacity to make decisions about litigation, residence, care, financial affairs and property, and marriage.
He said evidence showed that she had ‘no idea’ what would happen to money and property after any divorce, and did not appear to understand that divorce may bring about a ‘financial claim’.