Mistress allowed to care for man, denied access to finances

A woman who started a relationship with a man while he was still married was given access by a district judge to care for him now that he is mentally incapacitated, but her bid to be allowed to manage his property and affairs failed.

The woman, who has been romantically involved with the man at least since 2014, sought to have his two adult children revoked as his deputies. The man’s wife divorced him in 2021.

The dispute between the woman and her lover’s children was revealed in a judgment made available on March 21. The judgment did not disclose how much money the man has, or the ages of the parties involved.

If her application to revoke his children’s deputyship failed, the woman sought to be named a joint deputy with his children, which would give her a say in matters relating to his welfare and finances.

A deputy, usually a family member or close friend, makes decisions on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity.

District Judge Shobha Nair said in the judgment that the woman should be allowed to continue caring for the man, as they share a close relationship.

The judge, however, dismissed the woman’s request to be granted the powers to jointly manage her lover’s finances with his children.

Judge Shobha said some degree of caution is needed on this front, given his children’s claim that $450,000 was withdrawn from their father’s bank account while he was staying with his lover, and the fact that he had gone through divorce proceedings recently.

Both the man’s lover and his children are appealing against the judge’s decision.

According to the judgment, the man moved in with his mistress and her children in 2014. They travelled to various countries at least 24 times between 2015 and 2022.

During a trip to Krabi, Thailand, in 2016, the man was injured in a motorcycle accident. His health deteriorated significantly from 2018.

In 2020, he was diagnosed with dementia after suffering a fall in the woman’s home.

Two years later, his children were appointed to be his deputies. They did not inform the court in their application that their father had a lover he was living with.

In April 2023, the children filed a summons seeking to prevent the woman from having access to their father.

Judge Shobha said the children not informing the court of their father’s relationship shut out the woman and prevented her voice from being heard.

She said: “Even if the children may not have a good relationship with (the woman) and may even view her as instrumental in the break-up of the relationship between their parents, they cannot take the position that (their father) need not have (his lover) participate in (his) care.”

Even so, the judge said the children’s omission, while regrettable, did not necessitate revoking their position as deputies.

Both parties accused the other of falling short in their care for the man.

The woman referred to the fact that the man had been moved from one hotel room or service flat to another from March 2023 without anyone giving him proper care.

She alleged that one of the man’s children was on his phone while his father struggled to get into bed, and claimed the man was not fed properly and medicine was not properly administered.

Among other allegations, the children pointed to an incident where their father ended up in hospital after his lover took him out for a meal at a hotel.

Judge Shobha said while she understood the emotion behind the allegations, she did not find a pattern of neglect by either party.

The judge said that after she expressed concern about the man having to move from one hotel to another, his children made arrangements for their father to stay in a two-bedroom condominium unit with a full-time helper.

The judge added: “While it is possible that the (children) took these steps quickly in order to satisfy the court, I do not believe they would renege on their obligations after the hearing.”

She ordered that he remain in his current condominium unit with his children attending to him there if an alternative was not agreed to.

His lover is allowed to visit him daily and is to be privy to communication with caregivers and medical professionals. Decisions on his welfare are to be jointly made with his children.

As for the man’s finances, the judge ordered for his children to continue managing them. They are required to report to the Office of the Public Guardian yearly on how they are carrying out their obligations.

Judge Shobha said that while there may be differences in how care should be given, the idea is for both parties to work together and step up in areas where the other may not be able to.

She said: “The tendency to believe that a certain course of action is in the best interests of (the man) when it is in fact a course that fits the values and beliefs of the deputy would need to be avoided.

“The need for long-term sustainable plans is crucial for (the man’s) well-being... It bears repeating that no plan is perfect but perfect efforts must always be exercised.”