The Tribune

A SUPREME Court judge has dismissed a daughter’s seven-year bid to take legal control of her elderly parents’ affairs, ruling that the Mental Health Act cannot be used as a vehicle to settle a bitter family dispute over property and control.

In a detailed judgment delivered in the Family Division, Justice CV Hope Strachan found that the application by Libbye Darville to be appointed permanent guardian of her parents, Minard Ulric Johnson and Eloise Butler Johnson, failed to meet the strict statutory requirements under the Mental Health Act.

The case, first filed in March 2019, centred on whether the elderly couple — now aged 89 and 87 — were incapable of managing their affairs by reason of mental disorder and whether their daughter should assume control of their real estate holdings and finances to the exclusion of her siblings.

Justice Strachan described the matter as one that should have been treated with urgency but instead dragged on for seven years, largely because the required medical evidence was not produced in a timely manner.

At its core, the judge said, the court’s role under the Mental Health Act is narrow and precise: it is not to referee family conflicts but to determine, based on medical evidence, whether a person lacks the legal capacity to manage his or her affairs.

When the application was filed, Mr Johnson was 83 and Mrs Johnson 81. The daughter alleged her father had declined cognitively following a 2017 hospitalisation for pneumonia and was behaving out of character. She claimed he stopped attending family functions and church, failed to attend to home repairs, and spoke about past events as though they had just occurred.

She further alleged that he had signed letters accusing her of fraudulently claiming ownership of rental apartments she had managed for more than 20 years.

Her mother, she said, had suffered memory loss since the 1990s and now had severe dementia.

The daughter argued she was best positioned to manage her parents’ estate, having long handled rent collection and household affairs. She claimed her siblings were unfit, accusing one brother of criminal conduct and substance abuse and asserting that he and a sister had taken control of the family home and barred her from access.

But Mr Johnson mounted a forceful defence.

In an affidavit filed in 2019, he flatly rejected any suggestion that he was incapacitated.

“I am of sound mind and fully capable of making decisions for my wife and myself,” he said.

He described his daughter’s actions as deceitful and accused her of attempting to seize control of assets he had built over decades.

“I am extremely disappointed in her efforts to deceitfully try to take control of everything that I have worked so hard to accomplish,” he said.

He denied ever mandating her to run the family’s affairs and alleged that she had misused funds while collecting rent. He said he regained control of the apartments in 2018 with the help of his wife and other children, partly through proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court.

“I do not trust the Applicant and would never entrust her with guardianship of myself or my wife, should the need arise,” he said. “I do not want her back in my home under any circumstances.”

The judge examined four medical reports prepared between 2019 and 2023 by different physicians. The reports addressed the mental state of both elderly respondents, particularly Mrs Johnson’s dementia.

Justice Strachan emphasised that the Mental Health Act requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including proper medical certification and service of documents. The respondents had challenged the application on the basis that they were not properly served and that the application did not comply with the statutory framework, including amendments introduced under the 2022 Act.

The court agreed that serious procedural deficiencies existed.

The judge noted that guardianship under the Act is not granted simply because a family member believes another is declining or making questionable decisions. The legal threshold requires proof that the person is incapable of managing his or her affairs by reason of mental disorder, supported by compliant medical evidence.

The ruling makes clear that even where dementia is present, that alone does not automatically justify transferring control of property or finances to a child. The evidence must satisfy the statutory criteria.

Justice Strachan found that the application, as framed and pursued, did not meet those requirements.

The court also addressed the long delay in prosecuting the matter. While acknowledging the pandemic and challenges in securing medical reports, the judge noted that the proceedings had not been managed with the urgency such sensitive applications demand.

Ultimately, the application for guardianship was dismissed.

The judge made no finding that the elderly couple were incapable of managing their affairs within the meaning of the Act. Nor did the court appoint any guardian.