British in-laws marriage ban ‘breaches human rights’

A British law, which prevents marriage between in-laws, could be scrapped, after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was a breach of human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg made the ruling in a case brought by a Warrington couple, a British father-in-law and daughter-in-law, who had been refused permission to marry by Warrington Registry Office.

The man, identified in court as 'B', who is nearly 60, developed a relationship with L, who is nearly 20 years younger, after her marriage to his son broke down. B, who divorced his first wife in 1987, subsequently remarried, but the marriage ended in divorce in 1997. L had married B’s son from his first marriage – identified in court as C – and the couple had a son – identified in court as W – before their divorce, also in 1997.

The court heard that a relationship developed between B and L, following C’s departure from the marital home in 1995 and that the couple had lived together since 1996. B and L said that they both plan to adopt W, as permitted under UK domestic adoption law, and that he now refers to B, who is his grandfather, as ‘Dad’.

The couple were refused permission to marry, because, under the Marriage Act 1949, the marriage could only go ahead if both parties were over 21 and both former spouses were dead. Amendments made to the Act in 1986 in order to lift the ban were not adopted.

The European Court said that the ban meant that B and L were “ unable to obtain legal and social recognition of their relationship.”

The verdict stated: “The Court observed that the bar on marriage, although pursuing a legitimate aim in protecting the integrity of the family, did not prevent such relationships occurring.

“Furthermore, since no incest, or other criminal law provisions prevented extra-marital relationships between parents-in-law and children-in-law, it could not be said that the ban on the applicants’ marriage prevented the second applicant’s son from being exposed to any alleged confusion or emotional insecurity.”

The court also said that exceptions had been made in Britain in cases where it was believed that “no harm would ensure” from the marriage taking place.

Judges also referred to a similar previous cases, where the UK Parliament had ruled that barring the marriage “served no useful purpose of public policy.”

B and L were awarded nearly £12,000 in costs and expenses.

The ruling means that the UK government will now have to consider changing the law in order to give parents-in-law and children-in-law the automatic right to marry.

(KMcA/SP)