Incapacity, Guardianship, and the Rights of the Developmentally Disabled
Nov 1, 2024 | Written by: | Share
In October 2024, an unpublished opinion was issued by the New Jersey Appellate Division exploring the issues of incapacity, guardianship, and the rights of the developmentally disabled. Notably, the Spectrum Institute, the Arc of New Jersey, the ACLU, and other national and state organizations were granted amicus[1] to participate in this appeal, which speaks to the importance of the issues and ultimate determinations.
P.D.B. appealed from an Order that, despite dismissing the guardianship complaint, imposed continuing conditions upon him. However, because the trial court did NOT find that he was incapacitated, the court did not retain jurisdiction over P.D.B. and therefore could not impose any such conditions upon him.
P.D.B. turned 18 years of age and his mother filed a complaint with the court to be appointed as the guardian over her son.
In response to the complaint by the mother, the court appointed a Guardian ad litem (GAL), but in the meantime ordered that P.D.B continue his weekly psychiatry appointments and reunification therapy with the mother.
The GAL ultimately concluded that P.D.B. did NOT need a general guardian because he could make decisions for himself, but instead the GAL recommended a limited guardian to make medical, financial, and education decisions, in which P.D.B. could participate, but the final determination would go to the guardian.
Almost two years later, the GAL submitted an updated report and indicated that P.D.B. was now twenty years old, graduated from high school, was in community college, and had been able to avoid any issues with school, substance abuse, and so on. It is noteworthy that P.D.B. opposed the guardianship by his mother.
Almost three years after the inception of the matter, the mother withdrew her complaint, indicating that the litigation was having a deleterious effect on P.D.B., and they wanted it to end.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice but imposed conditions within said dismissal upon P.D.B., such as continued meetings with the GAL, etc.
P.D.B. sought to eliminate the conditions, indicating that they exceeded the authority of the court and violated his constitutional rights, as no findings had been made as to his capacity.
The issue before the Appellate court was whether the trial court misapplied Rule 4:37-1(b) to support its authority in imposing conditions despite dismissing the complaint. Notable considerations from prior cases included: "[W]e review the meaning or scope of a court rule de novo, applying 'ordinary principles of statutory construction to interpret the court rules," DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023), and "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
The Appellate court determined that, well-meaning as it may have been, the trial court misapplied its discretion in compelling P.D.B. to continue to comply with certain conditions. As the NJ Supreme Court has stated, "The parens patriae power of our courts derives from the inherent equitable authority of the sovereign to protect those persons within the state who cannot protect themselves because of an innate legal disability."
Here, there was no finding of incapacity as the scheduled trial had not occurred. Therefore, the court mistakenly exercised its power. Under these circumstances, the court had no authority to impose intrusive, onerous conditions. Once the mother withdrew her complaint for guardianship, and the court declined to appoint a special guardian, there was no authority to continue the GAL's appointment.
The imposed conditions violated P.D.B.'s right to self-determination as established implicitly under the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 1. The NJ Supreme Court has long recognized this right and the clear public policy respecting the rights of all people, including the developmentally disabled.
[1] An amicus curiae brief is a written document filed with a court by a person or organization that is not a party to the case. The term amicus curiae literally means "friend of the court". The purpose of an amicus brief is to provide the court with information, expertise, or insight that may help the court make its decision.
Diana N. Fredericks, Esq., devotes her practice solely to family law matters. She is a Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney and was named to the NJ Super Lawyers Rising Stars list in the practice of family law by Thomson Reuters from 2015 through 2021, to the NJ Super Lawyers list in 2023 and 2024, and to the New Leaders of the Bar list by the New Jersey Law Journal in 2015. Contact Ms. Fredericks for a consultation at 908-735-5161 or via email.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.