Published on 12, July, 2020
Hello my name is Shola and I would like for the age for being an adult to be lowered from age 18 to age 16, 15 or even 14 or 13 in this country and all other countries too because I am so angry with older people and people who are young treating younger people which includes children and teenagers like they are babies/little children when they are all not babies or little children anymore. People seriously need to stop treating children and teenagers like they are babies or little children right now as that is not acceptable and children and teenagers should be allowed to have more rights, responsibilities and freedoms like adults already have please I need to know what are the full list of things young people want to change and what are the list of changes that they want to see happen on this planet?
I can imagine that if the age of adulthood lowered to be 13 years old, many people would take advantage of that, and likely would try to pressure them into marriage at that young age, and other things that would be deemed quite immoral.
I mean, if humans live on average till they're 70 years old, about 20 years of that is spent as a child and teenager, then you have about 50 years to be an adult, and do whatever you want to do, but in reality it's more like just doing whatever you have to do to survive.
Sure, you are young and want to make your own decisions, and not treated like a child anymore, so do mature and independent things, get a job, do the chores, cook for yourself, have a good credit score, get your driver's licence, get your own car, and then by the time you're 18 years old, move out and find your own place to live. You don't have to keep demanding that others treat you as an adult, but you know what, you'll be living as an adult for approximately 50 years of the rest of your life, so I'd hate to tell you to enjoy your childhood while it lasts, because that's the last thing you want to hear.
I think that you would like your full freedom to do whatever you want to do, but even as an adult, you're not completely free, and you still need to sacrifice your time to earn a living. You have the choice of earning money or being homeless, so that's not much of a freedom if you were aiming for that.
Well marriage is a good example. Right now you can get married at 16 but only with parental consent. There is talk of raising this to 18 which would create an odd situation where for 2 years its legal to have sex with someone but legally impossible to marry them.
Now here the concern is parents may be pressuring 16-17 year olds into marriages they don’t want. But what is not as widely considered is there may be 16 year olds who are prevented from marrying because their parents don’t approve of the match. Too poor, the wrong race, maybe the wrong gender.
So instead of getting a parents consent why not switch it so it has to be a magistrate or judges consent. If a 16 year old can stand up in front of a judge and convince them that they genuinely want to get married and they know what that entails and no one is coercing them then why shouldn’t they be allowed to get married?
Remember there are some people with intellectual disabilities who want to get married but can’t because they are considered too vulnerable and the courts have taken their legal autonomy to make a choice to marry away. Ultimately that’s not fair. There needs to be a system that allows vulnerable people to do things that might normally make them vulnerable to exploitation in a safe way.
We don’t have that system and we NEED it. I don’t see why the same principle couldn’t be applied to teenagers.
If people have the mental capacity to get married, intellectual disability or otherwise, then they are able to. Courts don't just prevent people from doing things for the fun of it.
It's unfortunate that right now I don't have access to the university library. I recall reading an excellent book where a social researcher had gone through and interviewed numerous people with learning / intellectual disabilities about their sex lives / relationships or as it turned out the lack of. It would be instructive to quote that book.
As I seem to recall for those living in care facilities the vast majority found their carers were largely unwilling to consider that they should have any kind of sex life or serious romantic relationship. Those lifting independently but with assistance in their own homes did engage in sexual / romantic relationships but often found them to be exploitative.
Offering assistance to make the decision is largely a one off event. To marry or not to marry in general not with respect to a particular person.
M said:I've never been the social worker in that scenario but not being able to read shouldn't prevent someone from getting married
I'm assuming they can read to a basic level but don't understand what the words on the form mean in context.
...
I've read the code of practice. Even it doesn't say the IMCA has to be called. I quote
An IMCA must be instructed, and then consulted, for people lacking capacity who have no-one else to support them (other than paid staff), whenever:
An IMCA may be instructed to support someone who lacks capacity to make decisions concerning:
The kind of situation I outline will fall under the later 2 if it falls within this definition at all. So the IMCA MAY be instructed but there is no requirment to do so.
A referral to social services would be made and they would refer for an imca for each of them if they were needed. Then they'd have formal capacity assessments to see what they understand of what they are asking for, in this case to get married.
I've never been the social worker in that scenario but not being able to read shouldn't prevent someone from getting married so I'd have thought they would be able to with support to understand the paperwork. Part of the MCA states that to determine someone lacks capacity you need to take practicable steps to help them to understand the decision so you couldn't just ignore them at the point your situation ends at...
Ok we'll lets take a hypothetical scenario then. 2 intellectually disabled adults at a care home are able to leave without supervision (and so not deprived of their liberty). One day they go, with out the knowledge of staff, to the registry office and ask for a marriage licence. They are unable to fill out the paperwork without help so staff doubt they have mental capacity. They determine that the couple are from the care home and contact the care home which confirms that, in the care homes opinion, they lack the capacity to marry. The families of both individuals are contacted by the care home and registry office who confirm that in their opinion they lack the capacity to marry. The couple are adamant they still wish to marry. At that stage will IMCA be called?
I very much doubt it.
Even if a subject cannot say "I don't agree", if there are signs that the person doesn't agree with whatever the decision is then the case should be referred to the court of protection. I've had this happen in a case of my own where the client couldn't directly say they wanted their case to go to court and their sole family member couldn't act on their behalf due to their own health reasons, so various safeguards then come into play, namely referring for an IMCA and getting the second opinion of a DoLS assessor, AND seeking the services of a solicitor. Even where there is a power of attorney making decisions it can still be challenged in the same way. The only person who can have the final say is a judge in the court of protection but even that involves consulting with each interested party.
If there is any doubt that an informal advocate I.e. family or friend taking on the role would NOT support the person to challenge a decision then they have a right to an IMCA to advocate for them. There are so many different professionals involved in such scenarios, it would be highly unlikely (not impossible) that not a single person would take such action to ensure people have independent advocacy and access to legal challenge.
I'd be amazed to hear of an example where someone didn't have any disagreement amongst professionals at all. It would be like finding a unicorn. There may be consensus about someone lacking capacity - sometimes this is straightforward to determine, but usually complex - but agreeing the decision in someone's best interests is rarely clear cut and there are usually lengthy conversations about the pros and cons of benefits and consequences of decisions.
I'm a big fan of this area of law and feel it works well. It isn't perfect, people are complex and so are their lives. The real problem is funding the services to be able to be responsive to challenges, but it is something most LAs take seriously because of the legal implications of not following the law promptly.