Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenges to Wills on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity are likely to increase due to a combination of economic factors, high prevalence of mental disorders in old age and the complexity of many modern families. Geriatric psychiatrists and other experts will be asked to provide expert assessment of the testamentary capacity of individuals whose Wills are being challenged retrospectively. The traditional criteria described in the Banks vs Goodfellow case have been held as the standard for testamentary capacity. However, these criteria may not be comprehensive enough for the coming generation of expert assessors. METHOD: The literature and selected international case law relevant to testamentary capacity were reviewed. Particular focus is placed on the conceptual and empirical approaches to the assessment of complex capacities that may inform the development of specific legal standards. In addition, 25 consecutive medico-legal reports on retrospective testamentary capacity were analyzed according to co-morbid medical and psychiatric disorders as well as psychosocial and behavioural variables. Illustrative case vignettes are included. RESULTS: The typical profile for retrospective challenges to testamentary capacity included a radical change from a previous Will (72%), where undue influence was alleged (56%), in a testator with no biological children (52%), who executed the Will less than a year prior to death (48%). Co-morbid conditions were dementia (40%), alcohol abuse (28%) and other neurological/psychiatric conditions (28%). CONCLUSIONS: While Banks vs Goodfellow continues to provide a sound basis for assessing testamentary (task-specific) capacity, the complexity and subtlety of the issues reflected in these cases highlight the need to go beyond the traditional criteria and assess situation-specific factors. Expert assessors need to determine whether the testator appreciated the consequences of executing or changing a Will, especially when there has been a radical change in the context of a complex or conflictual family environment. Empirical studies addressing the cognitive functions relevant to testamentary capacity and the development of legal standards based on a competency construct may also help to inform retrospective capacity assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".