Disability rights group sues state
Plaintiffs say guardianship violates rights to due process, equal protection
ALBANY — Four people with intellectual and developmental disabilities filed a lawsuit this week in state Supreme Court in Albany alleging that “illegal and discriminatory” guardianships over them has violated their rights to due process and equal protection.
The lawsuit — filed by Disabilities Rights New York, a nonprofit which provides legal and advocacy services for individuals with disabilities — names New York, the state’s court system, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson and Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas as co-defendants.
The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act mandates that courts are authorized to appoint guardians over people with intellectual disabilities and their property if the guardianship “is in the best interest of the person who is intellectually disabled.”
The guardianships allow guidance over major life decisions — including marriage, financial management, health care decisions and legal issues — to be controlled by someone’s guardian if they have been appointed one under the statute.
“JM,” a plaintiff in the lawsuit identified only as a 45-year-old woman from Suffolk County, was placed under guardianship when she was 22. The lawsuit alleges that the petition for guardianship under section 17-A of the statute contained “hearsay” and also her privileged medical information.
The lawsuit claims that JM — who has been diagnosed with several developmental disabilities — has been unable to terminate her guardianship, despite living independently since 2008. The petition also argues that JM’S guardian, her mother, provides minimal support and has threatened to fire staff who help with JM’S services, against her wishes.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit also allege that they were not informed of their right to object to their guardianship when their cases were considered by judges, nor were they informed of how much control they would lose over their decisions and property.
Disability Rights New York, based in Albany, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The organization claims that the lack of information or counsel provided to plaintiffs before they were put under guardianships violates their right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The organization said in the lawsuit that they have been “forced” to
spend resources on fact-finding while representing clients fighting to terminate their guardianship due to the “constitutional and discriminatory deficits” of a section of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act.
The lawsuit alleges that many plaintiffs are prevented from getting relevant court documents to fight to terminate their guardianship due to courts “asserting an individual under ... guardianship is not entitled to them or requiring the consent of the guardian to obtain them.”
Disability Rights New York said they had spent more than $435,200 on guardianship cases for clients since 2016, with more than 10,000 billable hours.
“The use of these resources has prevented DRNY from providing legal representation to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in other matters,” the plaintiffs claim.
The lawsuit also said that in 1990, the Legislature called on the state Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (then known as the Office for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled) to “study and re-evaluate” that key section of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. The plaintiffs claim that the three-year study was conducted, but not presented to the Legislature.
The lawsuit says that recommendations by the state in 2016 to meet their responsibility under the American with Disabilities Act included changing the statute to have an examination of “functional capacity” of those individuals with disabilities and to consider their preference in decision-making.
The plaintiffs use comparisons between section 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act and Section 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law in New York to argue that the latter allows for guardianship over individuals with disabilities in a “constitutional and non-discriminatory” way by requiring details of the necessity of a guardian and potential resources to be provided.
The lawsuit claims that forms to petition for guardianship under the relevant section of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act do not require “specific factual allegations” and focus on individuals’ diagnoses, rather than their specific needs. The plaintiffs also claim that individuals facing a petition for guardianship are not guaranteed meaningful notice of the action, necessarily present at court hearings or have counsel to represent them.
The unlimited duration of guardianships and lack of reviews following a guardian’s appointment are also of concern to the plaintiffs.
Disability Rights New York is seeking an injunction requiring the courts to inform all individuals under guardianship through the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act of their right to request changes or termination of their guardianship.
The lawsuit also calls on the courts to guarantee rights to those facing guardianship under that section of the law that are “not inferior to the substantive and procedural rights” guaranteed to those facing guardianship under Mental Hygiene Law.