In Re Marriage Of Oakley

340 S.W.3d 628 (Mo.App. 2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1986, H-a child at the time-was hit by a truck and suffered a traumatic brain injury. F was first appointed H's plenary guardian in Florida in 1988. F alleged that in 1995, he was appointed H's legal guardian in Florida, pursuant to a petition for determination of incapacity. Brown, was named H's conservator. Brown is responsible for managing H's settlement funds from the truck accident, paying H's bills, and giving H an allowance. F and H moved to Missouri in 1989, but F was not issued letters of guardianship in Missouri until October 2009. H resides at Lamplighter Village. Lamplighter is responsible for ensuring that H is bathed, has clean clothes, has adequate nutrition, and takes any prescribed medication. H receives an allowance and does not pay his own bills. H became involved with another Lamplighter resident, Melissa D. Warren, now Melissa D. Oakley (W). H and W live together in the independent residence across from Lamplighter. W has a limited guardian and conservator in Eagleman, the Howell County Public Administrator. W does not pay her own bills or manage her own money. H and W approached each guardian seeking permission to marry. F and Eagleman declined to grant permission. H and W obtained a marriage license on October 5, 2006, in Arkansas. They then drove back to Missouri and returned to Arkansas the following day and got married. Upon returning to Missouri after their marriage, H and W continued to live together at the Lamplighter residence and held themselves out as a married couple. F knew about the marriage within two or three months but waited nearly two years before filing the underlying action for annulment. F claimed that the Florida guardianship papers expressly removed from H the right to marry without court approval, and therefore the marriage was void. A photocopy of the Florida guardianship orders was attached to the petition. Dr. Dale Halfaker, a psychologist examined H on two occasions, first on November 26, 2002, and again on August 26, 2008. Dr. Halfaker determined H's IQ to be 71, which is just above the level of mild retardation but below the average range. Dr. Halfaker acknowledged that simply having an IQ in the borderline range does not disqualify an individual from entering into a marriage. Dr. Halfaker never asked H any questions pertaining to his marriage and believes that, although they may not fully comprehend all of the legal and financial consequences of marriage, H and W appear to have a happy and successful 'marriage kind of thing.' Dr. Halfaker never had any communication with W regarding H and admitted that he would have asked H different, more specific questions if he had evaluated him with the specific purpose of determining H's capacity to marry. He opined there could be significant emotional consequences for H if the marriage was suddenly declared void. F expressly denied his permission when H and W sought his approval to get married. Eagleman, W's limited guardian, and conservator, testified that she, too, denied the couple permission to marry. Neither H nor W deals with financial issues on a daily basis because both have conservators. H testified that he wants to stay married because he loves W. W testified that she is happier being married to H and that she is committed to taking care of H. She stated that she and H 'want to grow old together[,]' and that both would do whatever they could to take care of the other. The court affirmed the marriage. F appealed.