Opinion ID: 1826501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: least restrictive intervention

Text: Diane argues that the trial court's conclusion of law that a guardianship is necessary and a full guardianship is the least restrictive form of intervention is not supported by the record as a whole. We agree. The trial court is authorized to appoint a guardian only after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the guardian's powers and duties are appropriate as the least restrictive form of intervention consistent with the ability of the ward for selfcare. NDCC 30.1-28-04(2)(b)(4). Least restrictive form of intervention means that the guardianship imposed on the ward must compensate for only those limitations necessary to provide the needed care and services, and that the ward must enjoy the greatest amount of personal freedom and civil liberties consistent with the ward's mental and physical limitations. NDCC 30.1-26-01(3). Given the trial court's erroneous findings about the extent of Diane's incapacity and about the availability of an alternative resource plan, an unlimited general guardianship is not the least restrictive form of intervention. At the hearing, the co-guardians' counsel asked Diane's treating psychologist: What harm would it do to Diane if the Court granted the petition for a full guardianship? She responded: My concern is that a central issue in Diane's treatment has been her feeling that others make decisions for her and on occasion when she's felt that that was the case, she's acted out in ways that have been harmful to her. .... ... [I]t's very important to respect Diane's wishes and to help her feel as if she is more in control of her life. This expert testimony contradicts imposition of a general guardianship as excessive and inimical to Diane's welfare. Diane's brother envisioned limited involvement in Diane's affairs: Q [W]hat's your goal, your plans for this guardianconservator? A Well, to help prevent some of the things that have happened in the past here, for this major deal we had about a month or so ago, when she got so sick therejust try to help her along the way a[ ]little bit. Yet he sought general powers to intervene: Q Are you willing to accept a limited guardianship? A No. Q And why not? A As my dad has explained here [earlier], that leads into different avenues that can be undermined and it's a waste of time. Q You don't know whathow far you can go and what an issuewhat side of the line an issue falls on? A No. This misapprehends the legal difference between a general guardianship and a limited one. The trial court mistakenly adopted this misapprehension. By strongly intervening when she badly needed help in early 1992, the Braatens greatly aided Diane. That was commendable. A limited guardianship for medical purposes will continue to give a loving family power to aid its daughter again when the need arises, while leaving her largely free to pursue her own life, as it has in the past. The guardianship law directs: The order appointing a guardian confers upon the guardian only those powers and duties specified in the order. In addition to any other powers conferred upon the guardian, the court's order must state whether the guardian has no authority, general authority, or limited authority to make decisions on behalf of the ward in each of the areas of residential, educational, medical, legal, vocational, and financial decisionmaking. A grant of limited authority must specify the limitations upon the authority of the guardian or the authority retained by the ward. NDCC 30.1-28-04(5) (emphasis supplied). See Matter of Guardianship of Nelson, 204 Mont. 90, 663 P.2d 316 (1983) (remanding to trial court for amendment of order to specify proper form of guardianship). We see no reason why the trial court cannot fashion an appropriate order that leaves no doubt about the conditions and extent of the guardians' limited powers and duties.