A MOTHER has been granted a faculty to exhume the remains of her son, who died 33 years ago, so that she could have them cremated and reinterred in a family plot in a cemetery.
Sharon Long’s son, Ryan Edward Stuart Good, died on 22 June 1992 from smoke inhalation in a house fire. Owing to those circumstances, she had not wanted his body to be cremated in 1992. He was buried in the churchyard of St John the Baptist, Belleau, where her own father tended.
For many years, Mrs Long had visited the grave together with her father, and that had given her great comfort, the Consistory Court of the diocese of Lincoln heard. Her father was now no longer able to tend the churchyard, and since then it had reverted to nature. Mrs Long stated that that had made it too difficult for her to visit her son’s grave, because the churchyard now had sunken graves, molehills, and red ants.
She explained that she now wished to have her son’s remains exhumed and cremated so that his ashes could be interred in the grave of her mother at Louth cemetery. Mrs Long and other members of her family wished to be interred in that grave eventually.
The Rural Dean supported her application for a faculty, and the undertakers confirmed that exhumation was still technically attainable.
The Diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Judge Mark Bishop, said that the presumption was that the burial of human remains in consecrated ground was permanent. That presumption arose from the Christian theology of burial, which was that the funeral itself articulated very clearly that the purpose was to remember before God the departed, to give thanks for their life, to commend them to God the merciful redeemer and judge, and to commit their body to burial.
The permanent burial of the body or of cremated remains was to be seen as a symbol of entrusting the person to God for resurrection. The commending, entrusting, and resting in peace did not sit easily with “portable remains”, which suggested the opposite: reclaiming possession and restlessness and holding on the “symbol” of human life rather than a giving back to God.
The principle of permanence could be departed from, the Chancellor said, only if there were special circumstances that justified an exception to the principle by which Mrs Long’s son, Ryan, was laid to rest in 1992, and his remains should not now be disturbed.
The only basis for taking the exceptional step of exhumation would be, the Chancellor said, if to do so would promote a sense of family unity by interring his ashes in the family grave that currently contained the remains of his grandmother.
Mrs Long had said that family unity would be promoted by that, and that she would be better able to tend Ryan’s grave in such a place, as compared with the existing churchyard.
The Chancellor took into account that, although there had not been any mistake in burying Ryan in his existing location, the circumstances of his death had to be taken into account when assessing his mother’s application for a faculty. The reasons that cremation did not take place in 1992 plainly played a part in Mrs Long’s unease with the current interment, the Chancellor said.
But, the Chancellor said, that factor alone would not be enough to displace the presumption of permanence. He ruled, however, that the desire for a family grave, with all family members united in one place, expressed family unity and could justify taking the exceptional course of permitting an exhumation.
The faculty was granted for the exhumation to be carried out discreetly, with appropriate screening so as not to alarm those visiting the churchyard, and at a time when there would be minimal risk of visitors’ being aware of the exhumation.
The interment in Louth cemetery must take place within one month of the exhumation, and Ryan’s ashes were not to be kept awaiting later interment.
