ÿWPC| Ë%J¶:tN7tš=ÍdWz~æœlóqð¯ëiËy´el³{Qt¼«ÍàØßð4ᡳ{(ÅbceZËœ™ƒ@©[˜mqÜ8¢[Àƒýd¸qD0¦‚¿¼êè#Ò^o¿¨œ!ÚQëÇ,è)÷ú¿°ßA‘Æ9Ä»Qçdí³&þ5Hù¡zn¨ˆËãÑ£€÷„U À#g¨¦ªBi^ño­•Íî oãÅn/ù¾yΗþí9_ú!±TD#§¥1Ë‹ÒÓ=Š#;zDÖD¦[q!3q•ëz# ½ÚƒÜKË埅ë>aÆÁK×fïKcÕ;Nİi$Z$ ‡0õÉñy÷üÇ|x8ïÚ/…ÁbHpýNæøG9ß›ÒFþN¥ ñn‹›ëé:xROœìóÖâÇ)Àr¢Ìçºï1è´œ‹°yªLÛQÅxÈp„¹S"'†Úþ©` MÅâ0z<„Xv7kŠlÁNZ¢ð¬{åB¢b͹— &{r;:¡áܳjW(m”`îõJ™{ý¥ÉÊÞfÿW™«X£Y§ŸŽ@sèÂ9é%S¢dÍ4…!$žBTƒœÝZÕ„jÎuÅÈhcpkä­xYùN÷Þ¦ Ùˆ¤ºÂlšU:Ä %þU@DnXT 04¬#!àN^ w@4Oc me<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable#|x «<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalableXXwϾ¦ P쉊7ûXP( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó˜HP LaserJet III (2nd Floor)Ø,,,,,Ø,0 ~ -c {  {{U£U€Àe -¹‚øl¸ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÆæXXXÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òGUARDIANððSÔ_Ô€AUTHORITY€TO€CHOOSE€WARDððS€FRIENDSÐ ° ÐÌó óPrepared€for€Ô_ÔNAPASÔ_Ô€byÐ à Ðñ ññ ñcfprñ ññ ññ ñCenter€for€Public€Representationñ ñÌñ ññ ñnohoñ ññ ññ ññ ññ ñNorthamptonñ ññ ñ,€ñ ñññññmassaññññññññññMassachusettsññññ€ññññÌÔ_ÔññññÓ  ÓÔ_ÔÔ_Ôññññññññà  àññññññññà ` àññññññññà ¸ àññññññññà  àññññññññà h àññññññññà À àññññññññ2001ññññÔ_ÔÌññÌò òQuestionó óÐ @  ÐÌà  àDoes€a€guardian€have€the€legal€authority€to€control€with€whom€an€adult€ward€can€spendÏtime€and€associate?ÌÌò òAnsweró óÐ ð@  ÐÌà  àAs€advocates€we€may€find€the€very€possibility€that€a€guardian€has€the€authority€toÏchoose€a€ward's€friends€and€associates€disturbing€and€begin€with€a€bias€that€the€answer€shouldÏbe€no.€€While€this€may€be€an€appropriate€and€useful€advocacy€position,€the€answer€to€this€legalÏquestion€is€not€at€all€clear.€€The€answer€will€be€informed€by€an€analysis€of€Constitutional€law,Ïstate€law,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€guardianship€order,€the€age€of€the€ward,€as€well€asÏhis/her€ability€to€express€clear€preferences.€€State€constitutions,€statutes€and€regulations€mustÏbe€part€of€any€analysis€of€this€question.€€Some€states'€"mental€health€patients'"€rights€statutes,Ïfor€example,€Massachusetts€recognize€the€fundamental€nature€and€the€right€of€association€andÏdo€not€permit€its€restriction€for€any€individual,€unless€there€is€a€compelling€clinicalÏjustification.€€ÌÌà  àAn€individual's€ability€to€spend€time€with€and€be€in€relationship€with€whomever€he/sheÏchooses€springs€from€the€Constitutional€right€to€free€association.€€Arguably,€no€state€civil€courtÏorder€of€any€type€can€interfere€with€an€individual's€right€to€exercise€his/her€constitutionalÏrights.€€However,€there€are€numerous€state€law€guardianship€cases€that€appear€to€do€just€that.€€ÌÌà  àOne€of€the€most€frequently€litigated€issues€is€whether€a€guardian€has€the€authority€toÏinitiate€divorce€proceedings€on€behalf€of€a€ward.€€The€Illinois€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€aÏstrong€majority€rule€that,€absent€statutory€authorization,€a€guardian€cannot€maintain€an€action,Ïon€behalf€of€a€ward,€for€the€dissolution€of€a€ward's€marriage.òò€€Wood€v.€BeardóóÐ  #ð! Ð(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1958),€107€So.2d€198,€200;òò€Phillips€v.€Phillipsóó€(1947),€203€Ga.€106,€108„Ð $à" Ð09,€112,€45€S.E.2d€621,€622,€624;òò€€State€ex€rel.€Quear€v.€Madison€Circuit€Courtóó€(1951),€229Ð €%Ð # ÐInd.€503,€504„05,€99€N.E.2d€254,€255;òò€€Mohler€v.€Shank's€Estateóó€(1895),€93€Iowa€273,€277„Ð p&À!$ Ð79,€61€N.W.€981,€983;òò€€Birdzell€v.€Birdzellóó€(1885),€33ò ò€ó ó€Kan.€433,€435„36,€6€P.€561,€561„62;òò€Ð `'°"% ÐJohnson€v.€Johnsonóó€(1943),€294€Ky.€77,€78,€170€S.W.2d€889,€889„90;òò€€Stevens€v.€StevensóóÐ P( #& Ð(1934),€266€Mich.€446,€254€N.W.€162;òò€€Higginbotham€v.€Higginbothamóó€(Mo.Ct.App.1940),Ð @)$' Ð146€S.W.2d€856,€857;òò€In€re€Jenningsóó€(1981),€187€N.J.Super.€55,€58„59,€453€A.2d€572,€574;òòÐ 0*€%( ÐMohrmann€v.€Kobóó€(1943),€291€N.Y.€181,€189„90,€51€N.E.2d€921,€924„25;òò€Freeman€v.ò òó óÐ  +p&) ÐFreemanóó€(1977),€34€N.C.App.€301,€302„03,€237€S.E.2d€857,€858;òò€€Hart€v.€HartóóÐ ,`'* Ð(Tex.Ct.App.1986),€705€S.W.2d€332;òò€€cf.€Campbell€v.€Campbellóó€(1941),€242€Ala.€141,€142,Ð -P(+ Ð5€So.2d€401,€401„02€(stating€the€general€rule€but€finding€statutory€authorization);òò€€Cohn€v.Ð ð-@), ÐCarlisleóó€(1941),€310€Mass.€126,€128,€37€N.E.2d€260,€262€(finding€statutory€authorization);òò€Ð ° ÐKuta€v.€Kutaóó€(1951),€154€Neb.€263,€264„66,€47€N.W.2d€558,€559€(finding€statutoryÐ ° Ðauthorization).€€òòIn€re€Marriage€of€Drewsóó,€115€Ill.2d€201,€503€N.E.2d€339,€104€Ill.Dec.€782Ð ° Ð(Sup.€Ct.€Ill.€1986).€€Rehearing€Denied€Jan.€30,€1987.€€The€Court,€however,€held€thatÏannulment€of€a€marriage€was€within€the€authority€of€the€guardian€under€state€law.€ÏPresumably,€this€power€is€based€on€the€premise€that€the€ward€does€not€have€the€legal€authorityÏto€enter€a€contract.ÌÐ ð-@), ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€òòparens€patriaeóó€authority€of€the€state€to€impose€guardianship€on€individuals€determinedÐ ° Ðnot€to€be€competent€carries€with€it€all€of€the€trappings€of€best€interest.€€However,ÏCourts€often€couple€the€best€interest€standard€with€that€of€the€individual's€expressed€preference.€ÏIn€one€guardianship€case€taking€many€twists€and€turns€over€a€seven€year€period,€a€lesbian€whoÏhad€experienced€a€head€injury€in€an€automobile€accident€and€whose€family,€although€initially€aÏco„guardian€with€her€lover,€moved€for€exclusive€guardianship€and€the€right€to€prohibit€anyÏcontact€between€their€daughter€and€her€lover.€The€modification€of€the€guardianship€and€theÏrestriction€on€contact€was€originally€permitted€by€the€trial€court€and€the€Minnesota€Court€ofÏAppeals,€based€on€a€finding€that€it€was€in€the€ward's€best€interest€and€she€was€incapable€ofÏexpressing€a€preference.€€Ultimately,€the€woman's€lover€obtained€guardianship€based€on€aÏsubsequent€determination€by€the€Minnesota€Court€of€Appeals€that€it€was€both€the€ward'sÏpreference€and€also€in€her€best€interest.€€òòIn€re€Guardianship€of€Kowalskióó,€382€N.W.2d€861,Ï(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1986),€392€N.W.2d€310,€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1986),€and€478€N.W.2d€790€(Minn.ÏCt.€App.€1991).€òòóó€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòIn€the€Matter€of€the€Guardianship€of€Milleróó€1988€WL€106662,€(OhioÏApp.€4€Dist.)€(visitation€of€a€stroke€victim€by€previous€common„law€husband€was€not€in€theÏward's€best€interest€and€was€consistent€with€the€ward's€preference).€òò€In€the€Matter€of€M.R.óó,€628ÏA.2d€1274€(NJ€1994)€(overruling€trial€court's€order€placing€adult€ward€with€mother€when€wardÏhad€expressed€preference€to€live€with€father).€€However,€the€best€interest€standard€is€alive€andÏat€times€is€the€only€consideration€in€making€a€determination€regarding€association.€€òòIn€the€MatterÏof€Abbottóó,€1995€WL€419968€(Del.€Ch.),€(court€applied€best€interest€standard€exclusively€inÏdetermining€whether€to€permit€visitation€and€imposing€limitations€on€frequency).ÌÌà..àThere€is€a€growing€recognition€in€case€law€that€guardianship€should€be€narrowly€tailoredÏand€that€the€least€restrictive€approach€should€be€adopted€when€limiting€an€individual's€controlÏover€his/her€life.€€òòIn€the€Matter€of€Guardianship€of€Braatenóó,€502€N.W.2d€512€(Sup€Ct.€N.D.,Ï1993),€a€case€brought€by€the€North€Dakota€P&A,€the€parents€and€guardians€of€an€adult€womanÏwith€mild€mental€retardation€sought€to€restrict€her€smoking€and€to€keep€her€from€a€boyfriendÏthey€believed€to€be€abusive.€The€case€challenged€the€broad€general€guardianship€order€that€hadÏbeen€entered€by€the€trial€court€as€there€was€only€evidence€of€incompetence€regarding€medicalÏtreatment.€€The€Court€found€that€this€broad€guardianship€was€not€the€least€restrictive€and€thatÏthe€guardianship€order€should€be€narrowed€to€only€encompass€medical€decisions.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòInÏthe€Matter€of€the€Guardianship€of€Hedin€v.€Gonzalesóó,€528€N.W.2d€567€(Sup.€Ct.€Iowa€1995);ÏòòIn€re€the€Matter€of€Boyeróó,€636€P.2d.€1085€(Sup.€Ct.€Iowa,€1981).€€ÌÌà..àThere€is€no€simple€answer€to€whether€a€guardian€can€limit€a€ward's€association.€€ThisÏquestion€is€even€more€complicated€for€children.€€To€minimize€the€likelihood€of€these€possibleÏconflicts,€P&As€should€be€vigilant€in€their€efforts€to€defend€against€unnecessary€guardianshipsÏor€to€have€guardianships€that€may€be€appropriate€to€be€as€narrowly€tailored€as€possible.