In a recent decision by the Family Court at Hastings, Family Court Associate Sonya Singh acknowledged the strain the dispute had placed on the family.
“Today I took an inquisitorial approach to deciding this case as required by the law, and because everyone is self-represented and I was trying to ensure the family was not further torn apart, that would have occurred if an adversarial approach was taken,” Singh wrote.
The decision stated that for the caveat to remain, the daughter needed to prove the couple’s intended marriage contravened either a restriction imposed by the Marriage Act or a ground under the Family Proceedings Act.
Singh said the legal restrictions on marriage were people “within a prohibited degree of a relationship”, meaning a close family relationship, or under 16 years old.
While two witnesses pointed out that the couple were second cousins, Singh said that it was not legally a prohibited degree of marriage.
Another restriction was whether someone had the capacity to marry.
“If there is duress, mistake, insanity or for any other reason that a marriage could be made void, is something I looked at as well and considered,” Singh wrote.
“There is no suggestion of duress or mistake indicated by [the couple], they both have given their consent freely and seek to get married.
“What remains to discuss further is whether it can be established that [the woman] has not consented due to insanity or any other reason.”
The daughter submitted that her mother had a history of mental health issues, did not understand the implications of marriage, and was easily influenced by others.
The concerns were heightened by an earlier incident in which her mother had provided financial support to a friend overseas, leading her daughters to fear she could again be taken advantage of.
‘Cross at her daughters’
But the mother rejected those claims, telling the court she wanted to marry her prospective husband after a relationship spanning about four years.
She said she was “cross at her daughters”, had been surprised by their reaction and had expected their support.
Medical evidence showed the woman, who had experienced an episode of bipolar disorder more than a decade ago, had no cognitive impairment.
In a letter provided to the court, a doctor said the woman’s thought processes were coherent, her mood was stable, and there were no concerns about her capacity to make decisions regarding her relationships or marriage.
The court also heard that she had considered the practical consequences of marriage, including discussions about future living arrangements with the man, and plans to update her will to protect her daughters’ inheritance.
“Although today she was still somewhat cross and said she may change her view about that …” the decision stated.
Singh found there was no evidence the woman lacked capacity, was acting under duress, or failed to understand the nature and consequences of marriage.
She also rejected suggestions the man’s sole reason for marrying was financial gain.
In reaching that conclusion, Singh noted the couple had been in a relationship for several years, had become acquainted later in life despite being second cousins, and came from a religious background.
“They both belong in a traditional church environment and indicated to me that in the era that they grew up, they wanted to be respectable as a couple and be married, and not have to introduce each other as a partner or a friend, or a lady-friend.
“This is entirely reasonable.”
The caveat was discharged, clearing the way for the marriage to proceed.
But while Singh found the legal challenge could not succeed, she accepted the daughter’s concerns were genuine rather than vexatious.
“I say this because clearly it was a bit of a shock to receive a message that her mother had agreed to marry [the man].
“Perhaps things could have been done in a different way at the time, but because of the reaction from her daughter, [the mother] reacted as well.
Singh said the mother and daughter were “very similar”, and acknowledged there had been a lot of hurt.
“I really hope that both can put this matter aside, because life is short and it is important to have relationships with each other.”
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.