In re M.R.
135 N.J. 155, 638 A.2d 1274, 1994 N.J. LEXIS 180 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a guardianship proceeding for a person deemed generally incompetent, the party challenging that person's specific capacity to make a particular decision bears the burden of proving such incapacity by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- M.R. is a 21-year-old woman with Down's Syndrome who has been adjudicated generally incompetent.
- M.R.'s parents divorced when she was young, and she has lived with her mother her entire life.
- As she approached adulthood, M.R. expressed a consistent preference to move from her mother's home to her father's home.
- M.R.'s parents have contrasting parenting styles; her mother emphasizes structure and rules, while her father emphasizes freedom and personal choice.
- Expert testimony was divided regarding M.R.'s specific capacity to choose her residence, with evaluations of her social and cognitive functioning ranging from the level of a six- to nine-year-old.
- M.R. believed her father was more likely to respect her wishes and that living with him would allow her more freedom and growth in community skills.
Procedural Posture:
- M.R.'s mother filed an action in the New Jersey Chancery Division seeking to be appointed M.R.'s guardian.
- The trial court adjudicated M.R. generally incompetent.
- The trial court ruled that M.R.'s father, as the party arguing for M.R.'s specific capacity to choose her residence, bore the burden of proof.
- The trial court found that the father failed to meet his burden, determined residence based on M.R.'s best interests, and appointed the mother as guardian.
- M.R.'s father appealed to the Appellate Division.
- A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, with one judge dissenting on the allocation of the burden of proof.
- M.R.'s father appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey on the burden of proof issue and was granted certification on other related issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a guardianship proceeding for a generally incompetent person, does the party asserting that the person possesses specific capacity to make a particular decision bear the burden of proving that capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
No. In a guardianship proceeding, the party challenging a generally incompetent person's capacity to make a specific decision bears the burden of proving that specific incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. The court's holding is grounded in the state's public policy of respecting the right of self-determination for all individuals, including the developmentally disabled. The court reasoned that general incompetence does not equate to incompetence for all purposes, and an individual may retain the capacity to make specific choices about their life. Drawing an analogy to cases involving the termination of medical treatment, such as In re Grady, the court determined that a heavy burden must be placed on any party seeking to overcome an individual's right of self-determination. Therefore, the presumption should be in favor of capacity, and the party seeking to divest the individual of a specific choice must overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shifts the legal framework for guardianship proceedings by prioritizing the autonomy and self-determination of developmentally-disabled individuals over a purely paternalistic 'best interests' standard. By placing a high evidentiary burden (clear and convincing evidence) on the party challenging capacity, the court establishes a strong presumption in favor of an individual's ability to make specific life choices, even if they are deemed generally incompetent. This ruling forces courts to engage in a more nuanced, fact-specific inquiry into capacity for particular decisions rather than making blanket judgments. It also serves as a strong precedent for advocating for limited guardianships tailored to an individual's actual needs, thereby maximizing their personal liberty.
