Case Title: In re S.A.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-225


In re Judicial Review of S.A.                Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 5, Brandon Circuit

                                             February Term, 1990

Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Joseph L. Winn, Assistant Attorney
   General, Brandon, for plaintiff-appellee, Department of Mental Health

Fitts, Olson, Carnahan, Anderson & Bump, Brattleboro, for defendants-
   appellants, S.A.'s parents

Nancy Breiden, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Brandon, for defendant-appellee,
   S.A.

Allan R. Keyes and John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland,
   for amicus curiae Brandon Training School Association

Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington, for amici curiae, Vermont
   Developmental Disabilities Council, Vermont Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
   and Vermont Association for Retarded Citizens


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

     PECK, J.  The parents of S.A. appeal a district court judgment finding
their son, S.A., eligible for conditional release to a community placement.
We affirm.
                                     I.
     S.A., age 44, has lived at Brandon Training School (Brandon) since age
4, after he suffered postinfectious encephalitis that damaged his central
nervous system and left him profoundly mentally retarded.  He requires
twenty-four hour care and supervision due to his considerable health
problems, including a seizure disorder that has caused fractures and
osteomyelitis.  The fracture of his mandible many years ago has remained an
ongoing health concern because S.A. must wear a helmet at all times when he
moves about.   S.A.'s general level of ability corresponds to that of a
young child.  His gross motor skills enable him to get in and out of bed and
walk on level surfaces, but he cannot climb or descend stairs.  S.A.'s fine
motor development has progressed to the level of opening "push" doors and
grasping small items with his thumb and fingers.  Although he is nonverbal,
S.A. communicates through vocalizations, listens at least momentarily when
spoken to by a caregiver, and smiles in response to the presence of familiar
people.  He does not, however, understand the word "no," or imitate sounds
immediately.  He also tends to wander unless closely supervised.  S.A. has
continued to learn during his adult years despite his severe handicaps:
between 1972 and 1976 he learned to walk again after being nonambulatory for
more than thirteen years.
     Appellants were appointed S.A.'s co-guardians in 1981 pursuant to 14
V.S.A. {{ 3069(b)(1) (power of general supervision, including choosing or
changing his residence, care, habilitation, education, and employment) and
3069(b)(5) (power of consent to surgery or other medical procedures).  The
present controversy developed because appellants, S.A.'s parents, were not
notified of the application for judicial review filed in the district court
by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Mental Health (DMH),
on August 2, 1984.  Appellants first learned that the application had been
filed in March of 1988, when a paralegal from the Attorney General's Office
wrote to them of the tentative judicial review hearing date set for April 7,
1988.  They contend that as S.A.'s legal guardians they should have received
notice of the application filing and had an opportunity to attend hearings
at which the trial court assigned Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. (Legal Aid) as
counsel for S.A., appointed a guardian ad litem, and three status
conferences held in December of 1987, January and February of 1988.
     Appellants claim on appeal that the court violated S.A.'s due process
rights by failing to assure that he received an independent guardian ad
litem and an independent lawyer and that the court overlooked their
responsibilities and authority as S.A.'s legal guardians.  They further
assert that no legal standard exists making Brandon residents "eligible for
conditional release" to community placements and, in the alternative, that
even if such a legal standard does exist, the order finding that S.A. met
this standard was inconsistent with the court's own findings of fact.
                                    II.
                                    A.
     Appellants contend that their procedural due process rights were first
disregarded when DMH failed to notify them of the filing of the judicial
review application in August of 1984.  Appellants' due process rights
include the right to reasonable notice under the circumstances and an
opportunity to be heard.  Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,