In re the Appointment of a Guardian for D.D.
50 Misc. 3d 666, 19 N.Y.S.3d 867 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Guardianship for an intellectually or developmentally disabled person under SCPA Article 17-a may only be granted if it is the least restrictive alternative necessary to protect the individual. If an individual can live safely and make decisions with the assistance of a support network, such as family and community services, guardianship is not warranted.
Facts:
- D.D. is a 29-year-old man diagnosed with Down Syndrome and a mild intellectual disability.
- He is employed at a supportive work program and also at a local restaurant where he is well-regarded by supervisors and colleagues.
- D.D. lives with his mother, Ms. D., but is independent in his personal care, travels alone on public transportation to familiar places, and helps with household chores.
- He has an active social life, participating in sports, karate, and church activities.
- D.D.'s mother, Ms. D., is the representative payee for his Social Security income, and they manage his finances through a joint checking account.
- Ms. D. and D.D.'s brother, M.D., are concerned he cannot make sound medical and financial decisions, citing one instance of reluctance to remove an ankle brace and a fear he could be financially exploited.
- D.D. has expressed a desire to get married to his girlfriend, a prospect his mother, a proposed guardian, strongly opposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Ms. D. (D.D.'s mother) and M.D. (D.D.'s brother) filed a petition in the Surrogate's Court seeking to be appointed coguardians of D.D.
- The petitioners also sought to appoint D.D.'s other brothers as standby and alternate standby guardians.
- The court of first instance appointed a guardian ad litem to investigate the matter and file a report with findings and recommendations regarding D.D.'s best interests.
- The Surrogate's Court held evidentiary hearings on August 26, 2014, and March 27, 2015, where testimony was heard from the petitioners and D.D.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the appointment of a guardian under SCPA Article 17-a necessary and in the best interest of a high-functioning, intellectually disabled adult who is able to manage his affairs with the help of a strong existing support network?
Opinions:
Majority - Margarita López Torres, S.
No. The appointment of a guardian is not necessary or in D.D.'s best interest because less restrictive alternatives are available and sufficient. The law requires that guardianship be imposed only as a last resort when no other means can protect the individual. The court found that D.D. is a high-functioning adult who is capable of making decisions with the assistance of his extensive support system of family, friends, and community programs. The evidence did not support the petitioners' claim that D.D. is incapable of making medical or financial decisions; in fact, he consults with trusted individuals and has successfully managed his life. Less restrictive legal tools, such as a health care proxy and power of attorney, are available and more appropriate. The court also expressed concern over the proposed guardian's opposition to D.D.'s fundamental right to marry, which further indicated that guardianship was not in his best interest.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies the modern judicial shift in guardianship law from a paternalistic model to one that prioritizes individual autonomy and the principle of the least restrictive alternative. It establishes that a diagnosis of intellectual disability is insufficient on its own to warrant the removal of an individual's legal rights. The opinion strongly endorses the concept of "supported decision-making," where an individual with disabilities retains their rights while utilizing a network of trusted advisors, as a viable alternative to the complete legal incapacitation of guardianship. This case sets a precedent requiring petitioners to prove that such supportive networks are inadequate before the court will impose the "drastic judicial intervention" of guardianship, and it affirms that fundamental rights, like the right to marry, extend to persons with disabilities.
