Court Opinion

ID: 9687050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:14:54.617163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.927059
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately to rec*524ognize there is a certain tension in the current philosophy which advocates as much freedom and independence as possible [“least restrictive appropriate setting” NDCC § 25-01.2-01(3)] for a person with incapacities, and the function of the “alternative resource” agencies [“alternative to guardianship” NDCC § 30.1-26-01(1)] which, while required to foster that freedom and independence of the person to whom they are providing services, are also to safeguard the person’s “health, safety, or habilitation”. NDCC § 30.1-28-04(2)(b).
This tension between, on the one hand, allowing the person freedom and independence, and, on the other hand, safeguarding the person’s health and safety, requires delicate balancing by the agencies. It perhaps explains how Diane’s health deteriorated until her parents intervened while, at the same time, Diane was a client of Minot Vocational Adjustment Workshop and North Dakota Central Human Services. It also explains why these agencies and the advocates involved with protection and advocacy services do not report, or are reluctant to report, the condition of the client to the parents or family of the person with disabilities. To do so might indicate the client’s inability to function without family assistance, thereby compromising the client’s freedom and independence which the agencies are required to foster.
I recognize the concern of the family, if not an independent guardian, for the well being of the family member with disabilities. Because it is only when the family member’s health has deteriorated so greatly that the family is contacted, it is not surprising that the family would apply for a general guardianship to attempt to prevent a repeat of the health-threatening episodes.
I agree with Justice Meschke’s exposition of the philosophy and purpose of the law. The application of that philosophy and purpose to the facts of this case is more difficult. It is clear to me from the record that when Diane is “down and out” it is the family that is expected to rally to her aid, expected not only by Diane but by the agencies providing the protection and advocacy services. That aid is, of course, one of the expectations we have of families. But families also expect to be informed early enough to avoid being called on to intercede only when their family member is in desperate circumstances.
Because Diane’s need and the family’s concern appears to be primarily health related, I agree that a limited guardianship for that purpose should be attempted before a general guardianship is imposed.