Case Title: GUARDIANSHIP OF EVANS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-11-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14447 I N THE SUPFEME CCUKI' OF THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1978 I N THE G U A R D I A N S H I P OF J O S E P H AJTIDSJIO E V A N S , a minor. O R I G I N A L PIIOCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John Albrecht argued, Helena, &bntana For Respondent: Richard Llewellyn argued, County Attorney, Boulder, bbntana Patrick Flaherty argued, Boulder, montana Decided: N 0\/ 2 4978 Filed: h l ~ ; . ~ f j ~ ? M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O n January 6 , 1978, Shirley Frisch, p e t i t i o n e r , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r appointment as guardian of a minor i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, pursuant t o T i t l e 91A, Chapter 5, P a r t 2 , 1947 Revised Codes of Montana (Guardians of Minors). After a hearing on February 15, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court appointed Frisch guardian of t h e minor and issued l e t t e r s of guardian- s h i p t o her. The minor i n t h e a c t i o n i s a severely retarded 17 year o l d boy who a t a l l p e r t i n e n t t i m e s u n t i l t h e present has been i n t h e c a r e and custody of Boulder River School and Hospital. The parents of t h e boy are now divorced, both l i v e o u t of state, and they have had no contact with him i n r e c e n t years. On August 9, 1978, p e t i t i o n e r requested a hearing before t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t t h e lack i n t h e record of any n o t i c e t o t h e Boulder River School of the earlier guardianship proceedings. Until t h i s t i m e , Frisch had acted as guardian of t h e minor and performed a c t s such a s attempt- ing t o e n r o l l him i n public s p e c i a l education c l a s s e s , although she had not y e t brought t h e minor i n t o her home. A t t h e t i m e of t h e hearing and without p r i o r n o t i c e , p e t i t i o n e r was served with an order granting the Jefferson County Department of Welfare and t h e S t a t e Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r - vene i n t h e proceedings and with an order d i r e c t i n g t h a t f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e m a t t e r be held pursuant t o ~ i t l e 91A, Chapter 5, P a r t 3 of t h e Uniform Probate code r e l a t i n g t o guardianships of incapacitated persons. O n t h e same d a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t vacated its order appointing p e t i t i o n e r guardian of the minor. Again, t h e order w a s issued without n o t i c e t o Frisch. From these t h r e e o r d e r s , p e t i t i o n e r seeks r e l i e f . Upon proper showing by t h e p e t i t i o n e r , t h i s Court assumed j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o hear t h e matter as a w r i t of supervisory control. he p e t i t i o n e r has presented t h e following i s s u e s t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. W a s intervention by the county welfare department and SRS i n t h e subsequent guardianship proceedings timely and proper? 2. Is the guardian of a mentally retarded minor t o be appointed according t o t h e s t a t u t o r y procedure f o r appoint- ing a guardian of a minor o r according t o t h e procedure f o r appointing a guardian of an incapacitated person? 3 . W a s t h e vacating of the order appointing appellant a s guardian procedurally improper? A t o r a l argument, t h i s Court granted a motion by t h e County Department of Welfare and SRS permitting these ad- m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies t o withdraw from t h i s case. This withdrawal renders moot, f o r purposes of t h i s opinion only, t h e determination of t h e f i r s t i s s u e . W e note, however, t h a t the Jefferson County High School D i s t r i c t has moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r leave t o intervene i n t h e guardianship proceedings. To d a t e , t h i s motion has n o t been acted upon. The a c t i o n s of various governmental agencies i n Jefferson County intervening and withdrawing i n t h i s guardianship proceeding and e f f e c t i v e l y f o r e s t a l l i n g p e t i t i o n e r i n her e f f o r t s t o e n r o l l t h e minor i n public s p e c i a l education c l a s s presents some s e r i o u s questions. Although t h e question of the propriety of intervention by t h e high school d i s t r i c t i s n o t before us, w e do note t h a t school boards, l i k e administrative agencies, have only those powers s p e c i f i c a l l y granted t o them by s t a t u t e . ~ y a t t v. School ~ i s t r i c t No. 140 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 83, 87, 417 P.2d 221, 223. They can a c t only when empowered t o do so and must keep within the l i m i t s of the powers and authority granted them. S t a t e ex r e l . Anderson v. Board of Equaliza- t i o n (1957), 133 Mont. 8, 17, 319 P.2d 221, 226-27; Abshire v. School D i s t r i c t No. 1 (1950), 1 2 4 Mont. 2 4 4 , 247, 220 P.2d 1058, 1060. W e expressly reserve judgment on whether intervention i n guardianship proceedings is properly within t h e powers and authority of school boards a s a question i n i t i a l l y f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court. But see University Center Inc. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools (1971), 386 Mich. 210, 191 N.W.2d 303, 306. Frisch f i r s t f i l e d f o r appointment a s guardian of the minor, then age 1 6 , on January 6 , 1978. She proceeded under sections 91A-5-201 through 212, R.C.M. 1947, r e l a t i n g t o guardians of minors. Notice of the hearing on t h i s p e t i t i o n was given only t o the parents of the minor, neither of whom had the care or custody of the minor, a resident of Boulder River School and Hospital. Notice was not given t o the minor himself o r t o Boulder River School. Section 91A-5- 207(1), R.C.M. 1947, requires notice i n such proceedings t o be given t o the minor i f 1 4 years of age or older; t o the person having h i s principal care and custody during the 60 days preceding the date of the application; and t o any l i v i n g parent of the minor. Our s t a t u t e s c l e a r l y indicate t h a t waiver of notice t o a mentally retarded person i s not t o be regarded a s e i t h e r unnecessary or automatically waived. See sections 38- 1203(3), R.C.M. 1947, (waiver of r i g h t s by mentally retarded person must be knowingly and intentionally made) and 91~-5- 309(2), R.c.M. 1 9 4 7 ("Waiver of notice by the person alleged t o be incapacitated is n o t e f f e c t i v e unless he a t t e n d s t h e hearing o r h i s waiver of n o t i c e is confirmed i n an interview with t h e v i s i t o r " ) . Therefore, although Boulder River School has apparently acquiesced i n t h e appointment of Frisch a s guardian, f a i l u r e t o send n o t i c e t o t h e minor rendered t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court appointing her guardian of t h e minor void. Grauman v. Chambers (1948), 122 Mont. 31, 36, 198 P.2d 629, 632; I n re Guardianship of Bouchat (1974), 1 1 Wash.App. 369, 522 P.2d 1168, 1170. Her s t a t u s was merely t h a t of a guard- i a n - de facto. Grauman v. Chambers, supra. However, when Frisch attempted i n t h e August proceedings t o c o r r e c t t h e lack of n o t i c e i n t h e record, the D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h a t any f u t h e r proceedings on the guardian- s h i p p e t i t i o n be conducted according t o t h e guardianship of incapacitated persons procedure. This is e r r o r . The Montana Uniform Probate Code e s t a b l i s h e s two s e p a r a t e systems t o provide protection f o r persons under d i s a b i l i t y and t h e i r property. I n s o doing, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has defined two groups of incompetent ( f o r these purposes) people-- minors and incapacitated persons. The d e f i n i t i o n s a r e i n p a r t mutually exclusive. A n incapacitated person i s defined i n s e c t i o n 91A-5- 1 0 1 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, as: ". . . any person who is impaired by reason of mental i l l n e s s , mental deficiency, physical i l l n e s s o r d i s a b i l i t y , advanced age, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, o r other cause (except minority) t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he lacks s u f f i c i e n t understanding o r capacity t o make o r communicate responsible decisions con- cerning h i s person o r which cause has so im- paired the person's judgment t h a t he i s incapa- b l e of r e a l i z i n g and making a r a t i o n a l decision with r e s p e c t t o h i s need f o r treatment;" (Em- phasis added. ) Thus, a person a f f l i c t e d only with incapacity caused by minority i s s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from coverage under t h e guardianship of incapacitated persons s t a t u t e s . A minor, on t h e o t h e r hand, i s defined a s "a person who is under eighteen (18) years of age." Section 91A-1-201(25), R.C.M. 1947. Thus, a l l minors, regardless of mental condi- t i o n , have been designated a s persons under d i s a b i l i t y needing t h e protection of a guardian. The f a c t t h a t a minor may be mentally retarded adds nothing t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e determination t h a t he i s i n need of protection. Even t h e b r i g h t e s t minor would have a guardian appointed f o r him i f proper procedures w e r e followed and circumstances warranted. Further, t h e procedures f o r removal of a guardian on p e t i t i o n of t h e ward i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended guardians f o r a l l minors t o be appointed under t h e minors procedure. A ward whose guardian i s appointed under t h e incapacitated persons procedure may p e t i t i o n a t any t i m e f o r removal of t h e guardian without regard t o h i s ( t h e ward's) age. Section 91A-5-307 ( I ) , R.C.M. 1947. A ward whose guardian is appointed under t h e minors procedure may p e t i - t i o n f o r removal of h i s guardian only i f he ( t h e ward) is 1 4 years of age o r older. Section 91A-5-212 (1) , R.C.M. 1947. ~ h u s , i f a guardian of a mentally retarded 10 year o l d were t o be appointed under t h e incapacitated persons procedure, t h e ward could immediately p e t i t i o n f o r h i s removal while a 10 year o l d of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e whose guardian w a s ap- pointed under t h e minors procedure could n o t so p e t i t i o n . Clearly, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e could not have intended mentally retarded minor wards t o have such powers of removal while denying them t o minor wards of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e . l'he Person over whom guardianship i s sought t o be established i n t h i s case is both a minor and mentally in- capacitated. The l e g i s l a t u r e has provided a s p e c i f i c proce- dure f o r c r e a t i n g a guardianship of a minor. A t t h e s a m e t i m e , it has s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded t h e incapacity of minority from coverage under t h e general procedure f o r c r e a t i n g a guardianship f o r an incapacitated person. I n t h i s case, t h e s p e c i f i c minors procedure, not t h e general incapacitated persons procedure, should be followed. The guardianship of a minor ends when t h e minor a t t a i n s majority. Section 91A-5-210, R.C.M. 1947. I f a t t h a t t i m e , it appears t h a t t h e person needs t h e continued protection of a guardian, new proceedings may be i n s t i t u t e d under t h e guardians of incapacitated persons provisions. Franklyn v. Sprague (1887), 121 U.S. 215, 229, 7 S.Ct. 951, 958, 30 L.ed. 936, 941-42; 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian & Ward S18. Mental r e t a r d a t i o n may be a changing condition d i f f i - c u l t of diagnosis. While these people may never achieve normal i n t e l l e c t u a l function, they may achieve t h e a b i l i t y l a t e r i n l i f e t o care f o r themselves without t h e a i d of a guardian. This p o s s i b i l i t y undoubtedly underlies t h e l e g i s - l a t u r e ' s a c t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h i n g community based f a c i l i t i e s t o which Boulder River School p a t i e n t s are c u r r e n t l y being released. See s e c t i o n 38-1201, R.C.M. 1947. I d e a l l y , a person should be re-evaluated p e r i o d i c a l l y t o see i f con- t i n u a t i o n of any guardianship is warranted. his is espe- c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e case of a guardianship f o r a young c h i l d . A bifurcated system where a guardian of a minor is appointed according t o t h e minors procedure regardless of t h e minor's mental capacity followed by an evaluation when t h e minor reaches 18 as t o whether continuation of t h e guardianship a s one of an incapacitated person is warranted seems b e s t t o guarantee t h i s periodic evaluation of t h e wisdom o r neces- s i t y of t h e guardianship. Until t h a t t i m e , t h e guardian of a minor has s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y t o look o u t f o r t h e ward's i n t e r e s t . Section 91A- 5-209, R.C.M. 1947; Franklyn v. Sprague, supra. But t o appoint a guardian f o r a mentally retarded youth under t h e incapacitated persons procedure when such a guardianship can continue i n d e f i n i t e l y without f u r t h e r adjudication, s e c t i o n 91A-5-306, R.C.M. 1947, i s contrary t o t h e r i g h t of a l l persons t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own l i v e s upon reaching adulthood. 1972 Mont. Const. A r t . 11, 99 3, 1 4 ; Mitchell v. McDonald (1943), 1 1 4 Mont. 292, 300, 136 P.2d 536, 541. A s w e have noted, t h e o r i g i n a l appointment of Frisch as guardian of t h e minor i s void f o r lack of n o t i c e t o the minor involved. This case therefore must be remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings under t h e guardian of minors procedures. O n remand, w e f e e l some d i r e c t i o n s on t h e proper implementa- t i o n of t h i s procedure a r e necessary. I n our view, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t intend t h a t a guardian of any minor, mentally retarded o r not, should be appointed i n such a summary proceeding a s apparently hap- pened i n t h e o r i g i n a l appointment of Frisch i n February. A glance a t t h e s t a t u t o r y scheme confirms t h i s . Section 91A-5-207(1), R.C.M. 1947, requires t h e n o t i c e t o t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s t h a t was not given i n t h i s case. Subsection (2) of t h e same s t a t u t e provides f o r a hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n a f t e r which t h e c o u r t i s t o make s p e c i f i c findings: ". . . t h a t a q u a l i f i e d person seeks appoint- ment, venue i s -proper, t & required notices have -- been given, t h e requirements of section 91A-5-204 have been met [ r e l a t i n g t o termina- t i o n of parental custody r i g h t s ] , and the - welfare -- and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the minor w i l l -- be served 2 the requested appointment . . ." - (Emphasis and bracketed material added.) The record here discloses no notice t o , or written waiver of notice by, e i t h e r Boulder River School o r the minor, making finding t h a t the required notices have been given impossible. Likewise, given the f a c t t h a t the minor was identified i n the o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n a s a resident of Boulder River School, a finding t h a t the welfare and best i n t e r e s t s of the minor would be served without examination i n t o h i s possible medical and mental problems is improper and indicates the procedure was too summary. A l l i n a l l , it appears t h a t these s t a t u t o r y safeguards f o r the protection of the minor were e i t h e r ignored o r over- looked. I f guardians of any minors a r e being appointed i n such a "summary" fashion, then the s t a t e is undoubtedly committing a g r e a t i n j u s t i c e t o some of these minors, regard- l e s s of t h e i r mental capacity. The concept of guardianship was designed t o provide protection f o r those incapable of protecting themselves. I f the appointing court ignores the available statutory protections of the minor's i n t e r e s t , then the statutory scheme and e n t i r e guardianship concept become farces. A l l minors, regardless of mental condition, a r e defined a s persons i n need of protection. Section 91A- 5-201 e t seq. To insure they receive the needed protection, t h e procedure f o r appointing a guardian f o r them should be a s rigorously followed a s the procedure f o r appointing a guardian of a mentally retarded adult. W e agree the s i t u a t i o n here involving an apparently se- verely retarded boy residing i n Boulder may c a l l f o r special consideration. In such cases, the statutory provision for appointment of an attorney to represent the minor, as was belatedly done here, comes into play. Section 91~-5-207(4), R.C.M. 1947. Special consideration for persons in this minor's position is afforded by the statutes governing release of a resident from Boulder River School. Section 38-1222(1), R.C.M. 1947, requires a specific habilitation plan, designed to "maximize his human talents and enhance his ability to cope with his environment". Each individualized habilita- tion plan, which is to be supervised by a medical doctor or a specialist in developmental disabilities, is to include plans for discharge from the institution. Section 38- 1222 (4) (f) . Each resident discharged to the community is to have a transitional habilitation assistance program. Sec- tion 38-1222(8). Notice and the possibility of a hearing on the patient's release are provided in section 38-1209(3), R.C.M. 1947. These release provisions in combination with a proper minors guardian proceeding would doubly insure that the best interests and welfare of a minor such as the minor here involved were served. Because of the procedural defects specified above, the District Court was without authority to make the original appointment of Frisch as the minor's guardian. Grauman v. Chambers, supra. Therefore, she had for the period between the original defective appointment and these proceedings, only the status of a guardian de - facto of the minor. In that capacity, she has acted on behalf of the minor with the apparent acquiescence of the administrator of Boulder ~iver School, one of the parties on which she originally failed to serve notice of the guardianship proceedings in February. We also note that the only parties objecting to her serving a s t h i s minor's guardian have been t h e administrative agen- c i e s which have s i n c e withdrawn from t h e case. I n a c t i n g a s t h i s minor's guardian p e t i t i o n e r has attempted t o e n r o l l him i n a public school s p e c i a l education c l a s s . That attempt has r e s u l t e d i n administrative pro- ceedings which are pending a t t h i s t i m e and a t which t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor need t o be represented. There may be pending o t h e r s i m i l a r matters p e t i t i o n e r has undertaken a s t h e minor's guardian which do not appear i n t h e record. Until a f i n a l determination has been made w e see no reason why p e t i t i o n e r may not continue t o act a s guardian de - f a c t o of t h e minor under t h e supervision of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a s t o a l l pending matters. Allowing her t o do s o a t t h i s t i m e would b e s t serve t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor. I n r e Guardianship of French (1975), 167 Mont. 540, 543 P.2d 173. Therefore a w r i t w i l l i s s u e d i r e c t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o hold a hearing and conduct f u r t h e r proceedings on F r i s c h ' s p e t i t i o n i n accordance with t h e applicable s t a t u - t o r y procedures s p e c i f i e d herein. The order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court vacating letters of guardianship i s stayed with r e s p e c t t o a l l pending matters i n which p e t i t i o n e r has served a s guardian of the minor u n t i l a f i n a l judgment on her p e t i t i o n f o r guardianship is rendered. W e Concur: '7 c An- 3/.& 5iL-F- / I . Chief J u s t i c e