Missing, but not necessarily dead
Mrs Lopez’s story (see below) is an unhappy one, but it’s unfair to blame people without knowing the facts.
It’s not enough for a person to be ‘missing’ for 10 years for him/her to be declared dead. There have to be grounds to suspect – beyond doubt – that he or she really is dead.
For example, somebody goes trekking in the Amazon, keeps contact with relatives for several days, and then suddenly disappears. Three men attempt to climb Everest; they are seen departing, others pass them on the way to the summit, but they never return. Or a boat goes down, and the bodies are never found.
Officially, all those people are missing, presumed dead, but they are not declared dead before X number of years have elapsed.
This woman’s husband, on the other hand, appears to have absconded. He told her he was going to Sicily for treatment, but he never turned up at the clinic or the hotel.
Yes, he may have decided to take his own life, as many of those who have terminal cancer decide to do. But given that his marriage had broken down, he was paying maintenance out of his pension, and his children were grown up, he may just as easily have done a bunk. The thing is, nobody knows, and there are no reasonable grounds to suspect a man is dead just because he told his wife he was going to Sicily and instead was never seen again (in Malta). No politician, magistrate or civil servant can have a person declared dead in those circumstances. The fact that 10 years have gone by is neither here nor there.
It is likely that Mrs Lopez was told she would have to wait 20 years because by then her husband would be 87 and at the end of his natural lifespan. I think we should be asking where Mrs Lopez’s children were in all of this. But then again, it really is none of our business.
At the risk of repeating myself, if there is any moral to this sorry tale, it is this: that it is often unwise to be financially dependent on another person, and it is always unwise to be financially dependent on a man who no longer wants to live with you (or you with him).
Women of Mrs Lopez’s generation were raised in a different world, and cannot be blamed for failing to take care of themselves because they are victims of circumstance – as indeed were their husbands, many of whom were overburdened with the responsibility that society placed on their shoulders.
But today’s women have no excuse. And still the vast majority of married women with children live that way in Malta.
timesofmalta.com, Monday, 3rd August 2009
Woman still awaiting pension, 22 years after husband’s disappearance
Claudia Calleja
Over 20 years passed since Gianna Lopez’s husband went missing in Sicily. Yet, the 74-year-old woman is still waiting for him to be declared dead so she can get her widow’s pension.
After her husband, Joseph, disappeared in June 1987 she was forced to change her once comfortable lifestyle and live off a measly social assistance. After waiting for almost two decades to take the matter to court, her case has now been pending for three years too many.
“I can’t believe it’s taken so long to get a signature on a certificate. The irony of it all is that when he went missing he was already a pensioner and he was terminally ill with cancer. He had gone to Sicily for treatment,” Mrs Lopez says, adding that she is only asking for what is hers by right.
“It’s mysterious. I can’t understand… I don’t like remembering the past. It hurts,” she says as her gaze drops towards the tiles of her tiny rented apartment that sucks most of her monthly budget.
“I used to be very angry but now I’ve found peace,” she adds in an Italian accent that gives away her Roman origins despite her having lived in Malta for 45 years.
After Mr Lopez disappeared at the age of 67 she was initially told the death certificate would be issued seven years after his disappearance. But when seven years elapsed, she was told 10 years had to pass. Then it became 15 and subsequently 20 years. With her son and daughter both living abroad, she felt alone and lost and just went with what she was told. Now she knows that a person has to have been missing for 10 years before a death certificate can be issued.
“I had gone to the Italian Embassy and to the police for help but, throughout these years, no one took the initiative to help me out. I was alone,” she says.
Three years ago, friends she made through a religious study group helped her initiate legal proceeding to obtain the certificate that would pave the way for a better life for her. But the case has been dragging on.
Mr Lopez is one of about 74 people reported missing between 1970 and the end of September last year, according to figures issued towards the end of 2008. While most missing people were foreigners about 20 were Maltese.
On June 15, 1987, Mr Lopez went to Catania for treatment. It was not the first time he had travelled to Sicily, so he knew the area. Although the couple were going through separation procedures at the time, Mrs Lopez supported him during his illness and asked him whether he wanted her to go with him. But he insisted on going alone.
When he failed to return to Malta, she went to Catania to look for him but the Italian police told her that, since he was Maltese, she had to file a missing person’s report in Malta, which she did. The police called for the assistance of Interpol but he was never found.
It eventually turned out that he never turned up at the clinic or hotel where he was meant to stay during his brief sojourn in Catania.
She hoped he would return but days turned into months and the years rolled on.
As she struggled with unanswered questions, the financial trouble started. The bank stopped giving her the maintenance money she was receiving at the time.
“They expected me to live on air, I think. Thankfully, with the help of a lawyer, I applied for social assistance. I’ve learnt how to live on a tight budget, manage money and stretch every last cent. I learnt the real meaning of modesty. It was not easy. You know how women are, it’s nice to be able to change your dress and feel good. But I had to give that up in exchange for food on my table,” she says.
“With time I’ve accepted it and I’m at peace. What I would like to get is the pension that is my right so that I can finally live without having to count every last cent,” she adds.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well, the point is that if he did have terminal cancer wouldn’t he be dead after 10 years? Well, 20 years now? I’m no doctor, but I would think that would be the case.
[Daphne – Yes, but the state can’t rely on hearsay as to whether he had terminal cancer or not. And because Mrs Lopez was separated she wouldn’t have had right of access to his medical records. I am sure that with the help of a good lawyer she could have sorted something out, but….]
No, of course I am assuming that he DID indeed have terminal cancer, and if so surely there must be some record or other to prove it. And yes, she should have enlisted the help of a lawyer long ago! There are plenty who would have been happy to help even some for a pittance.
While I completely agree with your moral of the story, I think this woman deserves compensation, if for nothing else, for the way she was misled. In such cases there need to be some precedent set and I’m sure there are, but no one was interested in pursuing the matter. If she was told, by an official, that it was to take seven years, then someone should be held responsible for that. Too often you go to any government agency, where a representative tells you one thing or the other, simply to get rid of you.
Granted, there are not enough details in the article to conclude anything solid, but as it currently stands there is someone’s rightly earned pension which isn’t being paid out at all.
[Daphne – We also have to consider the possibility that this might have been the intention, ugly though it may seem.]
What a sad story. I do hope that Mrs. Lopez’s case does find a speedy conclusion. Waiting and wading through uncertainty for twenty years is, on its own, a gross injustice in itself. Best of luck Mrs. Lopez.
Having said that, the argument about financial independence as one of the main pillars of marriage, whilst having its considerable advantages, does also, in my opinion, have its pitfalls.
I am acquianted with one financially very independent couple. Unluckily, one of the partners got the sack and the other just could not take it. So a split was inevitable. I came across several cases where financial independence, whilst supporting an opulent lifestyle, translated into several youngsters who materially have practically everything but lead a reckless life, possibly because they lacked the necessary course setting from their parents.
Having said that, let nobody construe the above statements as advocating financial dependence of one partner on another. Good heavens, no. Financial independence does have its benefits. Today’s lifestyles do require multiple inputs. If mishap, such as redundancy or illness, befalls one partner, it is a good idea to have a backup. And there is of course the issue of fulfillment.
So my humble advice is, yes, do take the necessary measures to have a degree of financial independence but do not render marriage just like any other civil economic partnership.
[Daphne – I’m sorry to have to disillusion you about this, but marriage was never anything other than a purely economic partnership, with the legitimisation of children part and parcel of that economic package, until Christianity took ‘ownership’ of it and vested it with the spiritual element. But pared down to its essentials and shorn of the religious element, marriage remains nothing but an economic support structure for two people and their children. Even love is peripheral because you don’t need marriage for love, but you need marriage for the economic wotsits, with or without love, as this sad story demonstrates.]
From a strictly economic point of view, I sometimes wonder whether it still makes economic sense to get married in the first place in 2009. But marriage is a very special partnership.
In my very limited understanding, marriage ought to be based primarily on love, trust and sacrifice. These are not old romantic notions.
[Daphne – That’s a popular misconception. Actually, what marriage should be based on is compatibility. A marriage based on compatibility and mutual fondness has a much stronger chance of survival that one based on incompatibility and love, which is the surest recipe for disaster. People do in the main love each other when they marry; it’s the incompatibility that creates the problems, and not the money or the lack of sacrifice or this or that or the other. It’s not liking the same things, not having had the same sort of upbringing, not sharing the same outlook, and so on.]
Marriage is not about wine and roses. After some time, roses wither and wine sours. Check out marriages that have lasted more than thirty years and in all probability you will find the above mentioned three ingredients there. And boy, it’s no easy ride but like a roller coaster experience, it is one many look forward to.
Of course economics cannot be excluded from the marriage package but I remain of the opinion that it is more than a purely economic relationship. What’s the economic advantage of marrying somebody who’s not in a good position to provide by virtue of limited financial means or limited abilities?
[Daphne – That’s why there’s a Maltese saying ‘Minghajr flus la tghannaq u l-anqas tbus.]
In some cases even the longer term prospects for improving the family’s economic situation appear bleak, yet people get married even in such situations.
[Daphne – Marriage is NO LONGER purely an economic arrangement in contemporary eyes. It remains, however, purely an economic arrangement, with responsibilities for any attendant minor children, in the law. And that’s is why it is so ridiculous that you cannot dissolve the marriage by means of divorce, when you can dissolve the economic unity – and hence the legal essence of the marriage – by means of a simple, one-page notary contract.]
Moreover, if marriage were purely an economic arrangement, one or both of the partners should be overjoyed if the other delves into the realm of prostitution, a trade whose revenue generation prospects are not insignificant. Yet I think we can agree that one of the main causes of separations remains infidelity.
[Daphne – A fatuous argument and a non sequitur.]
My understanding is that marriage is not a phenomenon limited to Christianity. It predates Christianity and in one form or another is found in most cultures.
[Daphne – Yes, precisely because it is not a religious or spiritual union but a contractual agreement between a man and a woman to share their efforts and resources in raising their legitimate children. Up to a few hundred years ago, the only couples to actually have a marriage contract, rather than simply moving in together after a quick verbal agreement witnessed by no one, were those with property, titles and goods and chattels.]
Therefore Christianity did not hijack anything in this sense. If anything it contributed to the consolidation of the institution.
[Daphne – Christianity, or rather Catholicism, definitely hijacked marriage. It was a completely secular thing up to a few centuries ago. It was secular well into Christianity. The Catholic rite as we know it is fairly recent in historical terms.]
I agree with you about the compatibility aspect in marriage bit but only to an extent. Compatibility is an important element that probably contributes to the forging of the initial spark in the first place.
[Daphne – No, that initial spark is sexual attraction. Usually, what compatibility makes for is friendship, not lust.]
Having said that, I know quite a few couples who were rather compatible, had great fondness of each other, shared similar ideas but ended up hating each other’s guts. Then I also know couples where compatibility was not the first item on the agenda, had to experience considerable turmoil but remained together in spite of adversities.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule in life but if I were to place my money on the likely prospects of a successful relationship, I would not throw all the money on compatibility and fondness on their own. In addition to the three ingredients I mentioned earlier I would add a good communication rapport. If two people accept that they are different, discuss their feelings about it, tolerate different points of view, agree to disagree on a number of points, are not too selfish on maintaining their ground and love each other, then I do believe that the prospects in such a scenario would be rather promising.
[Daphne – I agree, but I also think that you can talk a marriage to death. Endless discussion is what sends many husbands, and some wives, running for the hills. It’s so not restful.]
Naturally, the foregoing would not, in general, be applicable to marriages of convenience.
[Daphne – They’re some of the ones which last longest. Ask yourself why.]
And Madam – keep up the good writing. I may not always agree with your ideas but I enjoy reading anyway. Very refreshing.
Canoeist John Darwin surely knows a thing or two about this; maybe he would like to comment.
[Daphne – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2994946.ece ]
“when he went missing he was already a pensioner”
Does this mean the government was already paying him an old age? Does this mean that the government is refusing to pay the widow’s pension instead of the old age pension? Surely, it cannot have it both ways?
[Daphne There’s a lot of misunderstanding about pension rights here. I understand it myself only because I once had to work in a related field. Regardless of the community of acquisition in a marriage, it is the individual who actually pays national insurance contributions who has pension rights. The rights of a spouse who has not paid NI contributions are derived not from the NI contributions of the other spouse, but from the community of acquisition regime. To spell it out: the pension rights are the husband’s alone (in a case where only the husband pays NI). But the minute that pension cheque is issued, it becomes income, and hence it is subject to the community of acquisition regime and 50% of it is the wife’s. That is why, if the couple are legally separated, the wife cannot lay claim to that pension but only to what the court has ordered her husband should pay her as maintenance. Separated women who have never paid NI do not have a pension – a point many women choose to overlook – nor do they have pension rights. They have maintenance from their husband and, failing that, they are given, ex gratia and after application, the state minimum pension, which is what Mrs Lopez appears to have.
The point being missed in this story is that Mr and Mrs Lopez were separated. That complicates matters further. Separated women do not have automatic rights to a widow’s pension. It all depends on the terms and conditions of their separation agreement. When you separate from your spouse at law, what gets ‘separated’ in actual fact is the community of acquisition, and hence the woman has no more of an automatic right on her husband’s pension cheque than she would have had on his pay cheque.]
But in simple terms, if they are separated, does that not mean that she would be entitled to maintenance (ooh, how I hate that word)? If she is entitled to maintenance, that maintenance should/could be extracted from the husband’s pension. Perhaps as you said (a few times now), there just isn’t enough details.
[Daphne – There has to be a court order for that.]
I suppose the real question is, why weren’t there a court order for this? A court case can be enacted in someone’s absence. In this case it seems like there was a legal process underway and a court can only give a finite respect in regards to someone’s absence.
The newspaper article says that they “the couple were going through separation procedures” so it would appear that perhaps the separation wasn’t final yet. I don’t know what the legal status of Mrs Lopez would be in that case.
In the case of separation, if one of the spouses is awarded some form of maintenance money, this is to be paid by the other spouse until either (a) the death of one of the spouses or (b) where – upon application to the Court by one of the spouses – it is determined that a change in the regime governing the maintenance repayments is necessary due to any changes in either party’s income or other related condition.
“Christianity, or rather Catholicism, definitely hijacked marriage. It was a completely secular thing up to a few centuries ago. It was secular well into Christianity. The Catholic rite as we know it is fairly recent in historical terms.”
Are you sure? All major pre-Christian religions have religious rituals for marriage (including the Roman religion). So I do not think marriage was ever considered sic et simpliciter an economic contract.
[Daphne – Yes, it was. And where there was no distinction between the realm of the gods and that of Caesar, the ‘gods’ ceremony would have sufficed, as it does in Malta, but only for Roman Catholicism. In Europe until – what, 400 years ago? – the role of a churchman at a marriage was purely that of a witness to the marriage contract. He didn’t actually unite the couple in marriage. They did that themselves, by means of a contract.]
A good encyclopedia of world religions will show you that. [
As for your last assertion, a Catholic (Christian) marriage rite goes back to the IV century, evidence of which is found in various texts but can also be seen in a number of sarcophagi.
[Daphne – Please cite chapter and verse of those various texts, and explain to me how it is possible to find evidence of a marriage rite in a sarcophagus. Mention of the word ‘wife’ is not evidence of a marriage rite, still less a spiritual or religious one. A man’s wife was generally no more than the woman he chose for that role and who bore his children. There might have been a contractual obligation, or there might not. It all depends on their status. People buried in a sarcophagus would generally have had plenty of possessions, making a contract necessary. You are making the mistake of projecting the contemporary perception of marriage, of life in general, into the past. Marriage was and remains an economic union and a vehicle for the legitimisation of children and the extension of rights (and the concomitant obligations). Catholicism seized it as a means of legitimising the sexual act. Prior to that, all constraints on sexual activity were rooted in the need for men to ensure that the babies borne by their wives were theirs, and also to ensure that unmarried women were marriageable – hence no bastard children. And that’s why the constraints were on women and not on men, before the general Catholic ban on fornication.]
Shouldn’t the reporter have researched the rules and regulations stipulated by law in these circumstances before she rushed to print? You explained it very well and crystal clear. Maybe l-aqwa l-gallarija. Jew intliet il-pagna. Prosit lilek.
“the role of a churchman at a marriage was purely that of a witness to the marriage contract. He didn’t actually unite the couple in marriage. They did that themselves, by means of a contract.”
It still is, if you have some basic information on sacramental theology and canon law. The religious minister (be it priest, deacon or layman/laywomen) is acting only as a witness to the consent the parties are giving to each other. He does not “unite” the parties.
As for the texts I won’t cite only chapter and verse, but whole books, amongst others you may look for: Tertullian, Ad uxorem (CCL 1:371-394); Saint Augustine, De bono coniugali (Patr. Latina 40), and several others.
As for iconographic depictions of the christian marriage this citation would suffice for the time being: “… in iconography, a sarcophagus and a cup (depiction on the bottom of the interior) showing Christ himself crowning two spouses and presiding at the joining of their hands, which are placed on the Book of the Gospels (F. Cabrol ed., Dictionaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 10/2 (1932) 1095 and 1924). Thus while the human gestures remained the same, they were lifted to another plane” (A.G. Martimort ed., The Church at prayer, vol.III, 188). Thus, it is far from being a hijack!
As regards other aspects than the mere economic aspect/contract, the romans spoke also about the “affectio maritalis” manifested in the consent, and the “honor matrimonii”, i.e. the manifested intention to live as a husband and wife.
“You are making the mistake of projecting the contemporary perception of marriage, of life in general, into the past” . That’s your impression.