Advertisement

Guardianship and Conservatorship

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
  • D. Matthew Powell
  • Richard Van Duizend

Abstract

Guardianship is a legal relationship which authorizes one individual to become a substitute decision-maker for another. Its most common form is the “natural guardianship” relationship between parents and their minor children. A guardianship is established by court order when because of age, illness, or disability, a person is determined to be incapable of managing some or all of his or her personal and/or financial affairs. A guardian may be given partial or total authority to determine whether the disabled person will live in the community or an institution, and what type of medical, mental health and other services the disabled person will receive (personal guardianship), and/or partial or total power to manage and control that person’s property and income (conservatorship).

Keywords

Supra Note Limited Conservator Disable Person Abled Person Specific Duty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    See S. BRAKEL & R. ROCK, THE MENTALLY DISABLED AND THE LAW, 250 (Rev. Ed. 1971); Regan, Protective Services for the Elderly: Commitment, Guardianship, and Alternatives, 13 WM. & MARY L REV. 569, 570–573 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BRAKEL & ROCK, supra note 1, at 250.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rothman, The State as Parent: Social Policy in the Progressive Era, in W. GAYLIN, I. GLASSER, S. MARCUS, & D. ROTHMAN, DOING GOOD: THE LIMITS OF BENEVOLENCE, 67, 70(1978).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Id. at 72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. KITTRIE, THE RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT: DEVIANCE AND ENFORCED THERAPY (1971).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF SOCIETIES FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED (ILSMH), SYMPOSIUM ON GUARDIANSHIP OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED, 11(1969).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.g., THE PRESIDENT’S PANEL ON MENTAL RETARDATION (PPMR), REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON LAW (1963); PRESIDENTS COMMITTEE ON MENTAL RETARDATION (PCMR), REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT — MENTAL RETARDATION. CENTURY OF DECISION (1976); THE PRESIDENTS COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH (PCMH), REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT (1978); ILSMH, supra note 6; COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AAMD), POSITION PAPER ON GUARDIANSHIP FOR MENTALLY RETARDED PERSONS (1973); National Center For Senior Citizens, Model Guardianship, Conservatorship and Power of Attorney Legislation, in U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY: A WORKING PAPER, 75–110 (1977); GOVERNORS COMMISSION FOR REVISION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE OF ILLINOIS, REPORT (1976).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    PPMR, supra note 7, at 25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ILSMH, supra note 6, at 18–19.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAW (NCCUSL), UNIFORM PROBATE CODE (U.P.C.) Article V (4th Ed. 1975).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    PCMR, supra note 7, at 65–66.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.g., J.L. & J.R. v. Parham, 412 F. Supp. 112 (M.D. Ga. 1976) probable jurisdiction noted, 431 U.S. 936 (1977); Bartley v. Kremens, 402 F. Supp. 1039 rev’d on other grounds, 431 U.S. 119 (1977); Saville v. Treadway, 404 F. Supp. 430 (M.D. Tenn. 1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E.g., ALA. CODE §§26–2–1 (1975); ARK. STAT. ANN. §§57–601 (1975); and R.I. GEN. LAWS §§33–15–8 (1969).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Limiíed conservatorship only.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Even in states denominated ‘Plenary’ on Chart I, courts may in fact order less than total guardianship or conservatorship. However, the statute does not mandate or give preference to such action. Additionally, there is some authority in states which have adopted the Uniform Probate Code for courts to order less than plenary conservatorships. See U.P.C., supra note 10, at §§5–409 and 5–426.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    States which provide for the appointment of the director of the department of mental health and/or mental retardation or an institution superintendent to act as guardian for persons who are residents of institutions have not been included, since such appointments are generally made to enable the guardian to accept monetary entitlements of such persons.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    For persons with mental retardation only.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Because only guardianship statutes were searched, even for states where neither an “S” nor a “T” appears on the charts, statutory, provisions permitting use of these kinds of appointments may exist. This is particularly possible for testamentary appointment provisions, which may appear in the part of the state code dealing with wills.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Maine Bureau of Mental Retardation can charge a fee. ME. REV. STAT. tit. 18, §3629 (Supp. 1978). The Maine Department of Health and Welfare cannot. ME. REV. STAT. tit. 18, §3647 (Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Personal guardian only.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    This applies only to women in Delaware, Montana, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands and only to those persons between ages 18 and 21 in Mississippi.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    In Massachusetts this provision applies only to males; in the Virgin Islands it applies only to females; and in Mississippi it applies only to persons 18–21.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    In Massachusetts this applies to females only.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. BEASER, RUNAWAY YOUTH FROM WHAT TO WHERE: THE LEGAL STATUS OF RUNAWAY CHILDREN, 55–70 (1975).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See Katz, Legal Aspects of Foster Care, in THE YOUNGEST MINORITY, 72 (S. Katz ed. 1974).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    In Connecticut, however, the responsibility for the minor’s education is subsumed under the guardian’s general authority to exercise the powers of a parent. Rothman, supra note 3, at 95.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Kindred, Guardianship and Limitations Upon Capacity, in PCMR, THE MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZEN AND THE LAW, 62,76(1976).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    AAMD, supra note 7, at 14.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    The burden of proof in intervention proceedings for minors is generally by a preponderance of the evidence. See §§44(1) and (2) Burden of Proof.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    PPMR, supra note 7, at 27.Google Scholar
  31. 1.
    See e.g., ALA. CODE §26–2–1(1975); IND. CODE ANN. §29–1–18–1 (Burns 1975); LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 355 and art. 389 (West 1974); N.J. .STAT. ANN. §3A:1–1(West 1963); S.C. CODE §21–19–200(1970).Google Scholar
  32. 2.
    Note. Civil Commitment of the Mentally III. 87 HARV. L. REV. 1190, 1216 (1974); but ct. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) Uniform Probate Code (U.P.C.) §5–101 (4th ed. 1975). KAN. STAT. §59–3002 (1965); NEV. REV. STAT. §159.019 (1969); 20 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. §5501 (Purdon 1974).Google Scholar
  33. 3.
    The President’s Panel on Mental Retardation (PPMRJ, Report of the Task Force on Law. 25 (1963).Google Scholar
  34. 4.
    But see Council of the American Association on Mental Deficiency (A.A.M.D.). Guardianship for Mentally Retarded Persons, POSITION PAPERS OF THE A.A.M.D., 14 (1975); U.P.C. supra note 2.Google Scholar
  35. 5.
    See e.g., ARK. STAT. ANN. §57–601 (Supp. 1977); 18 ME. REV. STAT. tit. 18 §3601 (1975); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 58 §§851 and 852 (West Supp. 1977); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 14 §2683 (1968); but see CAL. PROB. CODE §1460 (West 1976); CONN. GEN. STAT. §45–70a(h) (Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  36. 6.
    Monahan and Wexler, A Definite Maybe: Proof and Probability in Civil Commitment, 2 LAW & HUMAN BEHAVIOR 37 (1978).Google Scholar
  37. 7.
    See §3(26).Google Scholar
  38. 8.
    H. BEASER, RUNAWAY YOUTH — FROM WHAT TO WHERE: THE LEGAL STATUS OF RUNAWAY CHILDREN, 44 (1975).Google Scholar
  39. 9.
    Kent v. United States. 383 U.S. 541. 554 (1966).Google Scholar
  40. 10.
    But see N.C. GEN. STAT. §35–1.8 (Supp. 1977).Google Scholar
  41. 11.
    Accord U.P.C., supra note 2, at §§5–301 and 5–401.Google Scholar
  42. 12.
    PRESIDENTS COMMITTEE ON MENTAL RETARDATION (PCMR), REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, MENTAL RETARDATION: CENTURY OF DECISION, 58–59 (1976).Google Scholar
  43. 13.
    AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA), CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, EC 7–1, EC 7–7, and EC 7–12 (1976).Google Scholar
  44. 14.
    Indiana, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin provide for appointment of both counsel and a guardian ad litem in guardianship proceedings involving adults. Washington has a similar provision applicable to guardianship proceedings involving minors.Google Scholar
  45. 15.
    U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–303.Google Scholar
  46. 16.
    INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF SOCIETIES FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED (ILSMH), SYMPOSIUM OF GUARDIANSHIP OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED, 19 (1969).Google Scholar
  47. 17.
    N.C. GEN. STAT. §35–1.16(b)(1977); TEX. PROB. CODE tit. 5 §130F (Vernon, Supp. 1978); see also UNITED STATES SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY. A WORKING PAPER, 81–83 (1977).Google Scholar
  48. 18.
    Chambers, The Principle of the Least Restrictive Alternative The Constitutional Issues, in PCMR. THE MENTALLY RETARDED AND THE LAW, 486 (1976); accord Kindred. Guardianship and Limitations Upon Capacity, in PCMR. id. at 66. see ILSMH, supra note 16, at 18–19.Google Scholar
  49. 19.
    Chapter 9: Advocacy, infra. Google Scholar
  50. 20.
    See ILSMH, supra note 16, at 23–24.Google Scholar
  51. 21.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 85, accord ILSMH, supra note 16, at 23; GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION FOR REVISION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE OF ILLINOIS REPORT, 135–136 (1976); see P.C.M.R., supra note 12, at 140; see also THE CONSER-VATEE RIGHTS COMMITTEE, THE STATUS OF CONSER-VATEES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] (1979).Google Scholar
  52. 22.
    See Levy, Protecting the Mentally Retarded: An Empirical Survey and Evaluation of State Guardianship in Minnesota, 49 MINN. L. REV. 821 (1965); Kindred, supra note 18, at 84–87.Google Scholar
  53. 23.
    See ILSMH, supra note 16Google Scholar
  54. 24.
    Id. at 24.Google Scholar
  55. 25.
    See Levy, supra note 22, Kindred, supra note 18.Google Scholar
  56. 26.
    U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–404(a).Google Scholar
  57. 27.
    Accord NCCUSL, UNIFORM VETERANS GUARDIANSHIP ACT §2 (1942).Google Scholar
  58. 28.
    E.g., U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–310.Google Scholar
  59. 29.
    Chart III. supra. Google Scholar
  60. 30.
    But see e.g., ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 110 Vz. §11a-9 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979) which places the burden of evaluating the respondent on the petitioner and NC. GEN. STAT. §35–1.16 (Cum. Supp. 1977) which makes respondents responsible for the cost of multidisciplinary evaluations.Google Scholar
  61. 31.
    E.g., IDAHO. CODE §56–239 (Cum. Supp. 1977); ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 1ipy2. §11a-11 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979); TEX. PROB CODE tit. 5 §130 G (Vernon Cum. Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
  62. 32.
    UNIFORM VETERANS GUARDIANSHIP ACT, supra note 27, at §7.Google Scholar
  63. 33.
    U.P.C., supra note 2.Google Scholar
  64. 34.
    Id. at 250.Google Scholar
  65. 35.
    Id. at §5–409(a) and (b).Google Scholar
  66. 36.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 73; see PCMR supra note 18, at 115–139.Google Scholar
  67. 37.
    Cf. §§17(1) and 18(1); Power, Cigarettes, Cokes & Candy: Should Mental Patients Beg?, 2 DISTRICT LAWYER 25 (1978).Google Scholar
  68. 38.
    See 43 Fed. Reg. 36, 409(1978).Google Scholar
  69. 39.
    Chapter 4: Zoning for Community Homes, supra. Google Scholar
  70. 40.
    Id. at §5(1).Google Scholar
  71. 41.
    See ILSMH, supra note 16, at 23.Google Scholar
  72. 42.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 85; accord ILSMH, supra note 16, at 23; and AAMD, supra note 4, at 20; G.A. Res. 2856, 25 U.N. GAOR 368, UNDOC A/8588 (1971).Google Scholar
  73. 43.
    ILSMH, supra note 16, at 23.Google Scholar
  74. 44.
    Accord Mental Health Law Project (MHLP), Legal Issues in State Mental Health Care: Proposals for Change — Suggested Statute on Guardianship, 2 MEN. DIS. L. RPTR. 449, 457 (1978).Google Scholar
  75. 45.
    Id. at 457; cf. U.P.C. supra note 2, at §§5–311 and 5–410.Google Scholar
  76. 46.
    MHLP, supra note 44, at 457.Google Scholar
  77. 47.
    See ILSMH, supra note 16. at 20; ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 110 V2, §11a-3(b) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  78. 48.
    E.g., U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–312.Google Scholar
  79. 49.
    See Chapter 2: Prohibiting Discrimination, supra. Google Scholar
  80. 50.
    MHLP, supra note 44, at 454.Google Scholar
  81. 51.
    AAMD, supra note 4, at 1; ILSMH, supra note 16, at 18–19; Kindred, supra note 18, at 71.Google Scholar
  82. 52.
    Nirje, The Normalization Principle, in CHANGING PATTERNS IN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED 231 (R. Kugel & A. Shearer eds. 1976); ILSMH, supra note 17, at 30; PCMR supra note 12, at 60.Google Scholar
  83. 53.
    U.P.C., supra note 2, at comment to §5–304.Google Scholar
  84. 54.
    Id.; Kindred, supra note 18, at 82; Levy, supra note 22.Google Scholar
  85. 55.
    PCMR, supra note 12, at 67.Google Scholar
  86. 56.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 76–83; Price & Burt, Nonconsensual Medical Procedures and the Right to Privacy in PCMR, supra note 18, at 94–110; Wyatt v. Aderholt, 344 F. Supp. 1383 (M.D.Ala. 1974).Google Scholar
  87. 57.
    Cf. Subchapter 1.6: Emergency Medical Care and Treatment for Infants, supra. Google Scholar
  88. 58.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 77.Google Scholar
  89. 59.
    Id. at 78.Google Scholar
  90. 60.
    New York State Association for Retarded Children v Rockefeller. 357 F Supp. 752 (ED.NY. 1973).Google Scholar
  91. 61.
    Fed. Reg. 53.950(1978).Google Scholar
  92. 62.
    Kindred, supra note 18. at 76.Google Scholar
  93. 63.
    Cf. Subchapter 1.1: Marriage, Annulment and Divorce, supra; see MHLP, Legal Issues in State Mental Health Care: Proposals For ChangeState Imposed Disabilities. 2 MENTAL DISABILITY LAW REPORTER 497, 502 (1978); PCMR, supra note 12, at 63.Google Scholar
  94. 64.
    id.; PCMR. supra note 12. at 63.Google Scholar
  95. 65.
    Subchapter 1.2: Relinquishment and Termination of Parental Rights, supra. Google Scholar
  96. 66.
    See Power, supra note 37.Google Scholar
  97. 67.
    UPC, supra note 2. at §5–418.Google Scholar
  98. 68.
    Power, supra note 37Google Scholar
  99. 69.
    See authorities cited in note 51.Google Scholar
  100. 70.
    AAMD, supra note 4, at 1.Google Scholar
  101. 71.
    For a discussion of the problems which have occurred with more narrowly drawn statutes, see Fratcher, Toward Uniform Guardianship Legislation, 64 MICH. L. REV. 977, 985–987 (1966).Google Scholar
  102. 72.
    U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, supra note 17, at 101–102; but see U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–420.Google Scholar
  103. 73.
    U.P.C.. supra note 2, at §§5–204 and 5–401 (1).Google Scholar
  104. 74.
    NCCUSL, UNIFORM GIFTS TO MINORS ACT (1956). The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act covers gifts of securities, money, life insurance, or annuity contracts. All gifts under the act are irrevocable. The custodian of the gift has broad discretion over management, investment, and disposition of the particular property given to the minor, as well as over payment to or on behalf of the minor of principal and income derived from that property.Google Scholar
  105. 75.
    See U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–202.Google Scholar
  106. 76.
    See Wald. The Rights of Youth. 4 HUMAN RIGHTS 13 (1974).Google Scholar
  107. 76.
    Keasey and Sales, An Empirical Investigation of Young Children’s Usage of Intentionality in Criminal Situations, 1 HUMAN BEHAVIOR 45 (1977); TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND GOALS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS AND PRACTICES: JURISDICTION — DELINQUENCY, 6–9 (1977); INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION/AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (IJA/ABA) JOINT COMMISSION, STANDARDS RELATING TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND SANCTIONS, §2.1 (Tentative Draft, 1977), see also IJA/ABA. STANDARDS RELATING TO NEGLECT AND ABUSE, §8.4(E) (Tentative Draft, 1977).Google Scholar
  108. 77.
    NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS (NACCJSG), REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, 476 (1976); TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND GOALS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS AND STATE PRACTICES: ABUSE AND NEGLECT, 159–167 (1977).Google Scholar
  109. 78.
    NACCJSG, supra note 76, at 496; UA/ABA, STANDARDS RELATING TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT, supra note 76, at §1.6; see Katz, Legal Aspects of Foster Care, in THE YOUNGEST MINORITY, 72, 85 (S. Katz ed. 1974). For a discussion of the importance to a child of the continuity of a parental type relationship see J. GOLDSTEIN, A. FREUD & A. SOLNIT, BEYOND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (2d ed. 1973).Google Scholar
  110. 79.
    IJA/ABA STANDARDS RELATING TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT, supra note 76, at §6.5.Google Scholar
  111. 80.
    BEASER, supra note 8, at 205–223.Google Scholar
  112. 81.
    Id. at 302.Google Scholar
  113. 82.
    GOLDSTEIN, FREUD & SOLNIT, supra note 78.Google Scholar
  114. 83.
    See authorities listed in note 77.Google Scholar
  115. 84.
    U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–418.Google Scholar
  116. 85.
    See R. ALLEN, E. FERSTER, & H. WEIHOFEN, MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND LEGAL INCOMPETENCY, 82 (1968).Google Scholar
  117. 86.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 75; accord PCMR, supra note 12, at 133; AAMD, supra note 4, at 21; ILSMH, supra note 16, at 25–26; MHLP, supra note 44, at 445; PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH (PCMH), REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, 43, 70–71 (1978); Horstman, Protective Services for the Elderly: The Limits of Parens Patriae, 40 MO. L. REV. 215, 232–259(1975).Google Scholar
  118. 87.
    E.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Cecelia R., 36 N.Y. 2d 317, 327 N.E. 2d 812 (1975); Dixon v. Attorney General, 325 F. Supp. 966 (M.D. Pa. 1971); Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972); Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972), vacated for entry of a definitive decree, 414 U.S. 473 (1974), clarified, 379 F. Supp. 1376 (E.D. Wise. 1974), vacated on procedural grounds, 421 U.S. 957 (1975); Suzuki v. Quisenberry, 411 F. Supp. 1113 (D. Hawaii, 1976); Bartley v. Kremervs, 402 F. Supp. 1039 (E.D. Pa. 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 431 U.S. 119 (1977); and Saville v. Treadway, 404 F. Supp. 430 (M.D. Tenn., 1974).Google Scholar
  119. 88.
    See also A. Mitchell, Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents: A Strategy for Legal Services Advocates, 12 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 451, 453 (1978).Google Scholar
  120. 89.
    See Chart IV and U.P.C., supra note 2, at §5–304.Google Scholar
  121. 90.
    Nebraska Press Asociation v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 587 (1976)(Brennan, J., concurring).Google Scholar
  122. 91.
    Accord NACCJSG, supra note 77, at §12.3; IJA/ABA, STANDARDS RELATING TO ADJUDICATION, §§6.1 and 6.2(a) (Tentative Draft, 1977); MODEL ACT FOR FAMILY COURTS, §29(c) (1975).Google Scholar
  123. 92.
    See ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. HOV2, §11a-11(b) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979); and ILSMH, supra note 16, at 26.Google Scholar
  124. 93.
    See Chart IV; see also, MHLP, supra note 44, at 453; U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, supra note 17, at 82; Horstman, supra note 86, at 251; and Heap v. Roulet, 152 Cal. Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1 (1979).Google Scholar
  125. 94.
    Cf. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, STANDARDS RELATING TO PROVIDING DEFENSE SERVICES, §1.5 (Approved Draft, 1968).Google Scholar
  126. 95.
    Accord U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, supra note 17, at 82.Google Scholar
  127. 96.
    E.g., ILL. ANN. STAT. eh. 110V2, §11a-11(c) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979; and WIS. STAT. ANN. §880.33(2)(b) (West 1977).Google Scholar
  128. 97.
    See AAMD, CONSENT HANDBOOK (1977); and Horstman, supra note 85, at 235–236.Google Scholar
  129. 98.
    Mitchell, supra note 88, at 454; Horstman, supra note 85, at 241–244.Google Scholar
  130. 99.
    See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970).Google Scholar
  131. 100.
    Mitchell, supra note 88, at 454–455; see Horstman, supra note 85, at 244–251 ; see also sources listed in note 86 and U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, supra note 17, at 81–82; with regard to counsel for minors, see IJA/ABA, STANDARDS RELATING TO COUNSEL FOR PRIVATE PARTIES, 72–74 (Tentative Draft 1977); NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ON STANDARDS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, §3.132 (1976).Google Scholar
  132. 101.
    Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).Google Scholar
  133. 102.
    Id. at 835 n.46.Google Scholar
  134. 103.
    E.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §35–1.16(a) (Cum. Supp. 1977); TEX. PROB. CODE tit. 5, §130G (Vernon Cum. Supp. 1978); REV. CODE WASH. §11.88.045 (Supp. 1977); WIS. STAT. ANN. §880.33(2)(a) (West 1977).Google Scholar
  135. 104.
    In re Gault, supra note 87, 387 U.S. at 58; see also, Suzuki v. Quisenberry, supra note 87, 411 F. Supp. at 1133; and Lynch v. Baxley, 386 F. Supp. 378, 396 (M.D. Ala. 1974).Google Scholar
  136. 105.
    MHLP, supra note 44, at 452.Google Scholar
  137. 106.
    Contra, id. Google Scholar
  138. 107.
    Id. at 453.Google Scholar
  139. 108.
    ILL. ANN STAT. ch. 11CP/2, §11a-10(c) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  140. 109.
    Mitchell, supra note 88, at 453–454; see also Horstman supra note 86, at 237–241.Google Scholar
  141. 110.
    Suzuki v. Quisenberry, supra note 87, 411 F. Supp. at 1127.Google Scholar
  142. 111.
  143. 112.
    ABA, supra note 13, at Canon 7; see also Andalman and Chambers, Effective Counsel for Persons Facing Civil Commitment: A Survey, A Polemic, and a Proposal, 45 Miss. L. J. 43 (1974).Google Scholar
  144. 113.
    ABA, supra note 13, at EC 7–1.Google Scholar
  145. 114.
    For suggestions on the approaches which attorneys may take in intervention proceedings see Mitchell, supra note 88, at 467–468; Andalman and Chambers, supra note 112, at 50–54.Google Scholar
  146. 115.
    U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, supra note 17, at 82–33; ABA, supra note 13, at EC 7–8.Google Scholar
  147. 116.
    Andalman and Chambers, supra note 112, at 54–72; Regan. Protective Services for the Elderly: Commitment, Guardianship and Alternatives, 13 WM & MARY L. REV. 569, 606 (1972).Google Scholar
  148. 117.
    ABA, supra note 13, at EC 7–7; see also Andalman and Chambers, supra note 112 at 48–49.Google Scholar
  149. 118.
    For the states which permit appointment of separate counsel and guardians ad litem see n. 14, supra. Google Scholar
  150. 119.
    Regan, supra note 116; Andalman and Chambers, supra note 112, at 72.Google Scholar
  151. 120.
    In re Dobson, 125 Vt. 165, 168, 212 A. 2d 620, 622 (1965); cf. ABA, supra note 13, at EC 7–12.Google Scholar
  152. 121.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 86; see Levy, supra note 22; for other problems which have beset at least one public guardianship agency see THE CONSERVATEE RIGHTS COMMITTEE, supra note 21.Google Scholar
  153. 122.
    Kindred, supra note 18, at 73.Google Scholar
  154. 123.
    ILSMH, supra note 16, at 15.Google Scholar
  155. 124.
    Accord, AAMD, supra note 97, at 17; PCMR, supra note 12, at 133; and Kindred, supra note 18, at 72.Google Scholar
  156. 125.
    See BEASER, supra note 8; Wald, supra note 76.Google Scholar
  157. 126.
    MHLP, supra note 44, at 448.Google Scholar
  158. 127.
    PCMH supra note 86, at 55; PCMR, supra note 12, at 16; MHLP, supra note 44, at 445; Civil Commitment of the Mentally III, supra note 2; Heap v. Roulet, supra note 93.Google Scholar
  159. 128.
    See e.g., Chapter 2: Prohibiting Discrimination, supra. Google Scholar
  160. 129.
    See e.g., PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION. PERSONAL PRIVACY IN AN INFORMATION SOCIETY: THE REPORT OF THE PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION (1977); Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (1977); Family Education Privacy Act of 1974. 20 U.S.C. §1231g (1978); Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 (1974); LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINHSTRATION, COMPENDIUM OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION (1975); IJA/ABA, STANDARDS RELATING TO JUVENILE RECORDS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS (Tentative Draft, 1977); MHLP, Legal Issues in State Mental Health Case: Proposals for ChangeTherapeutic Confidentiality, 2 MEN. DIS. L. RPTR. 337 (1977); CONTRACT RESEARCH CORP., MODEL STATE CODE: PRIVACY ACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (1977).Google Scholar
  161. 130.
    Nebraska Press Association vs. Stuart, supra note 90, 427 U.S. at 587 (Brennan. J., concurring).Google Scholar
  162. 131.
    Id. at 570.Google Scholar
  163. 132.
    See PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION, supra note 129, at 388; CONTRACT RESEARCH CORP., supra note 129, at §7.Google Scholar
  164. 133.
    See IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at §4.2; 28 C.F.R. §20.21 (a) (1976); NACJJDP, supra note 100, at §0.52.Google Scholar
  165. 134.
    See IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at 71. Danto, Writing Psychiatric Reports for the Court, 17 INT’L OFFENDER THERAPY & COMP. CRIM. 123(1973).Google Scholar
  166. 135.
    PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION, supra note 129, at 31.Google Scholar
  167. 136.
    IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at §4.3; but see CONTRACT RESEARCH CORP., supra note 129, at §6.Google Scholar
  168. 137.
    See ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 91V2, §804(d) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  169. 138.
    See e.g. the authorities listed in note 129; see also ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 911/2, §§801 et seq. (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  170. 139.
    PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION, supra note 129, at 19.Google Scholar
  171. 140.
    Id; For a more thorough discussion of the various factors to be considered in granting access to records in intervention proceedings, see AAMD, supra note 97, at 67–75.Google Scholar
  172. 141.
    Other statutes or proposals which rely strongly on consent include: MHLP, supra note 129, at 346; CONTRACT RESEARCH CORP., supra note 129, at §7(c); ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 91V2, §805 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  173. 142.
    See 28 C.F.R. §22.23 (1976); IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at §5.6; see also MHLP, supra note 129, at 349–350.Google Scholar
  174. 143.
    IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at §5.6(B)(2).Google Scholar
  175. 144.
    For examples of methods which may be used to preserve the anonymity of the subject of identifiable records, see 28 C.F.R. §§22.23, 22.24, and 22.26 (1976).Google Scholar
  176. 145.
    For examples of such a provision, see 42 U.S.C. §3771 (a) (1977); NACJJDP, supra note 100, at §0.535; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY IN EVALUATION RESEARCH, 7 (1975); and P. NEJELSKI AND H. PEYSER, A RESEARCHER’S SHIELD STATUTE: GUARDING AGAINST THE COMPULSORY DISCLOSURE OF RESEARCH DATA (1974).Google Scholar
  177. 146.
    For similar provisions see ILL ANN. STAT. ch. 911/2, §805(3)(d) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979); and 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(2)(A)(Supp. 1976).Google Scholar
  178. 147.
    PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION, supra note 129, at Appendix 1 : Privacy Law in the States. Google Scholar
  179. 148.
    E.g., ILL. ANN. STAT. Ch. 911/2, §§801 et seq. (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979); MHLP, supra note 129; PRIVACY PROTECTION STUDY COMMISSION, supra note 129; and ILLINOIS GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION, supra note 21.Google Scholar
  180. 149.
    MHLP, Legal Issues in State Mental Health Care Proposals for ChangeSuggested Statute on Civil Commitment, 2 MEN. DIS. L. RPTR. 127, 151 (1977); IJA/ABA, supra note 129, at 67.Google Scholar
  181. 150.
    See e.g., NACJJDP, supra note 100, at §0.56.Google Scholar
  182. 151.
    AAMD, supra note 97, at 2.Google Scholar
  183. 152.
    Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).Google Scholar
  184. 153.
    See, e.g., MHLP, supra note 129. at 350; ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 91V2-, §§815–816 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  185. 154.
    In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring).Google Scholar
  186. 155.
    Id. at 371.Google Scholar
  187. 156.
  188. 157.
    See sources listed in note 127 supra. Google Scholar
  189. 158.
    But see Addington v.Texas___U.S____(1979).Google Scholar
  190. 159.
    Intervention proceedings under this act can be distinguished from the commitment procedures examined by the Supreme Court in Addington v. Texas because of their greater dependence on factual questions and the availability of other dispositional alternatives to assist partially disabled and disabled persons denied guardianship and/or conservatorship. (See §10 Hearing and §11 Dispositional Alternatives.)Google Scholar
  191. 160.
    ARIZ. R. CRIM. P. 15.3 (1973).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
    • 1
  • D. Matthew Powell
    • 1
  • Richard Van Duizend
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental Disabilities State Legislative Project of the American Bar Association’sCommission on the Mentally DisabledUSA

Personalised recommendations