GUARDIANSHIP OF EVANS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14447 I N THE SUPFEME CCUKI' OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1978 IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JOSEPH AJTIDSJIO E A S V N, a minor. ORIGINAL PIIOCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John Albrecht argued, Helena, &bntana For Respondent: Richard Llewellyn argued, County Attorney, Boulder, bbntana Patrick Flaherty argued, Boulder, montana Decided: Filed: h l ~ ; . ~fj~? N 0\/ 2 4978 Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . On J a n u a r y 6 , 1978, S h i r l e y F r i s c h , p e t i t i o n e r , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a p p o i n t m e n t a s g u a r d i a n of a minor i n t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n t County, p u r s u a n t t o T i t l e 91A, C h a p t e r 5, P a r t 2 , 1947 Revised Codes of Montana (Guardians of M i n o r s ) . After a h e a r i n g o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a p p o i n t e d F r i s c h g u a r d i a n of t h e minor and i s s u e d l e t t e r s of g u a r d i a n s h i p t o her. The minor i n t h e a c t i o n i s a s e v e r e l y r e t a r d e d 17 y e a r o l d boy who a t a l l p e r t i n e n t t i m e s u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t h a s been i n t h e c a r e and c u s t o d y of Boulder R i v e r School and Hospital. The p a r e n t s of t h e boy a r e now d i v o r c e d , b o t h l i v e o u t of s t a t e , and t h e y have had no c o n t a c t w i t h him i n r e c e n t years. On August 9, 1978, p e t i t i o n e r r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g before t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t t h e l a c k i n t h e record of any n o t i c e t o t h e Boulder R i v e r School o f t h e e a r l i e r guardianship proceedings. U n t i l t h i s t i m e , F r i s c h had a c t e d a s g u a r d i a n of t h e minor and performed a c t s such a s a t t e m p t i n g t o e n r o l l him i n p u b l i c s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s , a l t h o u g h s h e had n o t y e t b r o u g h t t h e minor i n t o h e r home. A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and w i t h o u t p r i o r n o t i c e , p e t i t i o n e r was s e r v e d w i t h a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e J e f f e r s o n County Department of W e l f a r e and t h e S t a t e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r vene i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and w i t h a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h a t f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e m a t t e r be held pursuant t o ~ i t l e 91A, C h a p t e r 5 , P a r t 3 of t h e Uniform P r o b a t e code r e l a t i n g t o guardianships of incapacitated persons. On t h e same d a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t vacated i t s order appointing p e t i t i o n e r g u a r d i a n of t h e minor. Again, t h e o r d e r w a s i s s u e d w i t h o u t notice t o Frisch. From t h e s e t h r e e o r d e r s , p e t i t i o n e r s e e k s r e l i e f . Upon p r o p e r showing by t h e p e t i t i o n e r , t h i s C o u r t assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e m a t t e r as a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . he p e t i t i o n e r h a s p r e s e n t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s t o t h i s C o u r t f o r review: 1. W a s i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e c o u n t y w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t and SRS i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t g u a r d i a n s h i p p r o c e e d i n g s t i m e l y and p r o p e r ? 2. Is t h e g u a r d i a n of a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d minor t o be appointed according t o t h e s t a t u t o r y procedure f o r appointi n g a g u a r d i a n of a minor o r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p o i n t i n g a g u a r d i a n of a n i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n ? 3. W a s t h e vacating of t h e order appointing a p p e l l a n t a s g u a r d i a n p r o c e d u r a l l y improper? A t o r a l argument, t h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d a motion by t h e County Department o f W e l f a r e and SRS p e r m i t t i n g t h e s e adm i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s t o withdraw from t h i s case. This w i t h d r a w a l r e n d e r s moot, f o r p u r p o s e s of t h i s o p i n i o n o n l y , t h e determination of t h e f i r s t i s s u e . W n o t e , however, t h a t t h e J e f f e r s o n County High School e D i s t r i c t h a s moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r l e a v e t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e guardianship proceedings. n o t been a c t e d upon. To d a t e , t h i s motion h a s The a c t i o n s of v a r i o u s governmental a g e n c i e s i n J e f f e r s o n County i n t e r v e n i n g and withdrawing i n t h i s g u a r d i a n s h i p p r o c e e d i n g and e f f e c t i v e l y f o r e s t a l l i n g p e t i t i o n e r i n h e r e f f o r t s t o e n r o l l t h e minor i n p u b l i c s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s p r e s e n t s some s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s . Although t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e p r o p r i e t y of i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e h i g h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t i s n o t b e f o r e u s , w e do n o t e t h a t s c h o o l b o a r d s , l i k e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s , have o n l y t h o s e powers s p e c i f i c a l l y g r a n t e d t o them by s t a t u t e . ~ y a t t v. School ~ i s t r i c No. 140 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 83, 87, 417 t P.2d 2 2 1 , 223. They can a c t o n l y when empowered t o do s o and must keep w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s of t h e powers and a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d them. S t a t e ex r e l . Anderson v. Board of Equaliza- t i o n ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 133 Mont. 8, 1 7 , 319 P.2d 2 2 1 , 226-27; Abshire v . School D i s t r i c t No. 1 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 4 Mont. 2 4 4 , 2 4 7 , 220 P.2d 1058, 1060. W e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e judgment on whether e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n g u a r d i a n s h i p proceedings i s p r o p e r l y w i t h i n t h e powers and a u t h o r i t y of school boards a s a q u e s t i o n i n i t i a l l y f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court. But s e e U n i v e r s i t y Center I n c . v . Ann Arbor P u b l i c Schools ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 386 Mich. N.W.2d 210, 1 9 1 303, 306. F r i s c h f i r s t f i l e d f o r appointment a s g u a r d i a n of t h e minor, t h e n age 1 6 , on January 6 , 1978. s e c t i o n s 91A-5-201 through 2 1 2 , R.C.M. g u a r d i a n s of minors. She proceeded under 1947, r e l a t i n g t o Notice of t h e h e a r i n g on t h i s p e t i t i o n was g i v e n o n l y t o t h e p a r e n t s of t h e minor, n e i t h e r of whom had t h e c a r e o r custody of t h e minor, a r e s i d e n t of Boulder River School and H o s p i t a l . Notice was n o t given t o t h e minor himself o r t o Boulder River School. 2 0 7 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. S e c t i o n 91A-5- 1947, r e q u i r e s n o t i c e i n such proceedings t o be g i v e n t o t h e minor i f 1 4 y e a r s of age o r o l d e r ; t o t h e person having h i s p r i n c i p a l c a r e and custody d u r i n g t h e 60 days preceding t h e d a t e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ; and t o any l i v i n g p a r e n t of t h e minor. Our s t a t u t e s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t waiver of n o t i c e t o a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d person i s n o t t o be regarded a s e i t h e r unnecessary o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y waived. 1 2 0 3 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. See s e c t i o n s 38- 1947, (waiver of r i g h t s by m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d person must be knowingly and i n t e n t i o n a l l y made) and 9 1 ~ - 5 3 0 9 ( 2 ) , R.c.M. 1 9 4 7 ("Waiver of n o t i c e by t h e person a l l e g e d t o be i n c a p a c i t a t e d i s n o t e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s he a t t e n d s t h e h e a r i n g o r h i s w a i v e r of n o t i c e i s confirmed i n a n i n t e r v i e w with the v i s i t o r " ) . T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h Boulder R i v e r School h a s a p p a r e n t l y a c q u i e s c e d i n t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of F r i s c h a s g u a r d i a n , f a i l u r e t o send n o t i c e t o t h e minor r e n d e r e d t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a p p o i n t i n g h e r g u a r d i a n o f t h e minor v o i d . Grauman v . Chambers ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 122 Mont. 31, 36, 198 P.2d 629, 1 632; I n r e G u a r d i a n s h i p o f Bouchat ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 Wash.App. 522 P.2d 1168, 1170. de ian - facto. 369, Her s t a t u s was merely t h a t of a guard- Grauman v. Chambers, s u p r a . However, when F r i s c h a t t e m p t e d i n t h e August p r o c e e d i n g s t o c o r r e c t t h e lack of n o t i c e i n t h e record, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t any f u t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s on t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p p e t i t i o n be conducted a c c o r d i n g t o t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p of i n c a p a c i t a t e d persons procedure. This i s e r r o r . The Montana Uniform P r o b a t e Code e s t a b l i s h e s two s e p a r a t e s y s t e m s t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r p e r s o n s under d i s a b i l i t y and t h e i r p r o p e r t y . I n s o d o i n g , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s d e f i n e d two g r o u p s of i n c o m p e t e n t ( f o r t h e s e p u r p o s e s ) people-minors and i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s . The d e f i n i t i o n s a r e i n p a r t mutually exclusive. An i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 91A-51 0 1 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. ". . . 1947, as: any p e r s o n who i s i m p a i r e d by r e a s o n of mental i l l n e s s , mental deficiency, physical i l l n e s s o r d i s a b i l i t y , advanced a g e , c h r o n i c u s e of d r u g s , c h r o n i c i n t o x i c a t i o n , o r o t h e r c a u s e ( e x c e p t m i n o r i t y ) t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t understanding o r capacity t o make o r communicate r e s p o n s i b l e d e c i s i o n s conc e r n i n g h i s p e r s o n o r which c a u s e h a s s o imp a i r e d t h e p e r s o n ' s judgment t h a t h e i s i n c a p a b l e o f r e a l i z i n g and making a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n (Emw i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s need f o r t r e a t m e n t ; " p h a s i s added. ) Thus, a p e r s o n a f f l i c t e d o n l y w i t h i n c a p a c i t y c a u s e d by m i n o r i t y i s s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e d from c o v e r a g e under t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p of i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s s t a t u t e s . A minor, on t h e o t h e r hand, i s d e f i n e d a s " a p e r s o n who i s under e i g h t e e n (18) y e a r s of a g e . " R.C.M. 1947. S e c t i o n 91A-1-201(25), Thus, a l l m i n o r s , r e g a r d l e s s of m e n t a l c o n d i - t i o n , have been d e s i g n a t e d a s p e r s o n s under d i s a b i l i t y n e e d i n g t h e p r o t e c t i o n of a g u a r d i a n . The f a c t t h a t a minor may be m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d a d d s n o t h i n g t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t h e i s i n need of p r o t e c t i o n . Even t h e b r i g h t e s t minor would have a g u a r d i a n a p p o i n t e d f o r him i f p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s w e r e f o l l o w e d and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t e d . F u r t h e r , t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r removal of a g u a r d i a n on p e t i t i o n o f t h e ward i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d g u a r d i a n s f o r a l l m i n o r s t o be a p p o i n t e d under t h e minors procedure. A ward whose g u a r d i a n i s a p p o i n t e d under t h e i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s p r o c e d u r e may p e t i t i o n a t any t i m e f o r removal of t h e g u a r d i a n w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o h i s ( t h e w a r d ' s ) age. S e c t i o n 91A-5-307 ( I ) , R.C.M. 1947. A ward whose g u a r d i a n i s a p p o i n t e d under t h e m i n o r s p r o c e d u r e may p e t i t i o n f o r removal o f h i s g u a r d i a n o n l y i f he ( t h e ward) i s 1 4 y e a r s of age o r o l d e r . S e c t i o n 91A-5-212 (1) R.C.M. , 1947. ~ h u s ,i f a g u a r d i a n o f a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d 10 y e a r o l d were t o be a p p o i n t e d under t h e i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s p r o c e d u r e , t h e ward c o u l d immediately p e t i t i o n f o r h i s removal w h i l e a 10 y e a r o l d of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e whose g u a r d i a n w a s app o i n t e d under t h e m i n o r s p r o c e d u r e c o u l d n o t s o p e t i t i o n . C l e a r l y , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o u l d n o t have i n t e n d e d m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d minor wards t o have s u c h powers of removal w h i l e d e n y i n g them t o minor wards of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e . l'he P e r s o n o v e r whom g u a r d i a n s h i p i s s o u g h t t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s c a s e i s b o t h a minor and m e n t a l l y i n capacitated. The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s p r o v i d e d a s p e c i f i c p r o c e A t the same d u r e f o r c r e a t i n g a g u a r d i a n s h i p o f a minor. t i m e , i t h a s s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded t h e i n c a p a c i t y of m i n o r i t y from c o v e r a g e under t h e g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e f o r c r e a t i n g a I n t h i s case, t h e guardianship f o r an incapacitated person. s p e c i f i c minors p r o c e d u r e , n o t t h e g e n e r a l i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s p r o c e d u r e , s h o u l d be f o l l o w e d . The g u a r d i a n s h i p o f a minor ends when t h e minor a t t a i n s majority. S e c t i o n 91A-5-210, R.C.M. 1947. If a t that time, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p e r s o n needs t h e c o n t i n u e d p r o t e c t i o n of a g u a r d i a n , new p r o c e e d i n g s may b e i n s t i t u t e d under t h e g u a r d i a n s of i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s p r o v i s i o n s . Sprague ( 1 8 8 7 ) , 1 2 1 U.S. L.ed. 936, 941-42; 215, 229, 7 S.Ct. 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian & Franklyn v. 951, 958, 30 Ward S18. Mental r e t a r d a t i o n may be a changing c o n d i t i o n d i f f i c u l t of d i a g n o s i s . While t h e s e p e o p l e may n e v e r a c h i e v e normal i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n , t h e y may a c h i e v e t h e a b i l i t y l a t e r i n l i f e t o care f o r t h e m s e l v e s w i t h o u t t h e a i d of a guardian. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y undoubtedly u n d e r l i e s t h e l e g i s - l a t u r e ' s a c t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h i n g community based f a c i l i t i e s t o which Boulder R i v e r School p a t i e n t s a r e c u r r e n t l y b e i n g released. See s e c t i o n 38-1201, R.C.M. 1947. I d e a l l y , a p e r s o n s h o u l d b e r e - e v a l u a t e d p e r i o d i c a l l y t o see i f cont i n u a t i o n of any g u a r d i a n s h i p i s w a r r a n t e d . his i s espe- c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e case of a g u a r d i a n s h i p f o r a young c h i l d . A b i f u r c a t e d system where a g u a r d i a n of a minor i s a p p o i n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m i n o r s p r o c e d u r e r e g a r d l e s s of t h e m i n o r ' s m e n t a l c a p a c i t y f o l l o w e d by a n e v a l u a t i o n when t h e minor r e a c h e s 18 a s t o whether c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p a s o n e of a n i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n i s w a r r a n t e d seems b e s t t o g u a r a n t e e t h i s p e r i o d i c e v a l u a t i o n of t h e wisdom o r necess i t y of t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p . U n t i l t h a t t i m e , t h e g u a r d i a n of a minor h a s s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y t o look o u t f o r t h e ward's i n t e r e s t . 5-209, R.C.M. 1947; F r a n k l y n v . Sprague, s u p r a . S e c t i o n 91ABut t o a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n f o r a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d y o u t h under t h e i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n s p r o c e d u r e when s u c h a g u a r d i a n s h i p c a n continue i n d e f i n i t e l y without f u r t h e r adjudication, section 91A-5-306, R.C.M. 1947, i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e r i g h t of a l l p e r s o n s t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own l i v e s upon r e a c h i n g a d u l t h o o d . 1972 Mont. Const. A r t . 11, 99 3 , 1 4 ; M i t c h e l l v . McDonald ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 4 Mont. 292, 300, 136 P.2d 536, 541. A s w e have n o t e d , t h e o r i g i n a l a p p o i n t m e n t of F r i s c h as g u a r d i a n o f t h e minor i s v o i d f o r l a c k of n o t i c e t o t h e minor i n v o l v e d . T h i s c a s e t h e r e f o r e must be remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s under t h e g u a r d i a n of minors p r o c e d u r e s . On remand, w e f e e l some d i r e c t i o n s on t h e p r o p e r implementat i o n of t h i s p r o c e d u r e a r e n e c e s s a r y . I n o u r view, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t h a t a g u a r d i a n o f any minor, m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d o r n o t , s h o u l d b e a p p o i n t e d i n such a summary p r o c e e d i n g a s a p p a r e n t l y happened i n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p o i n t m e n t of F r i s c h i n F e b r u a r y . A g l a n c e a t t h e s t a t u t o r y scheme c o n f i r m s t h i s . S e c t i o n 91A-5-207(1), R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e n o t i c e t o t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s t h a t was n o t g i v e n i n t h i s c a s e . S u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of t h e same s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n a f t e r which t h e c o u r t i s t o make s p e c i f i c findings: ". . . t h a t a q u a l i f i e d person seeks appointment, venue i s - p r o p e r , & t required notices --g i v e n , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n have been 91A-5-204 have been met [ r e l a t i n g t o terminat i o n of p a r e n t a l custody r i g h t s ] , and the w e l f a r e --t i n t e r e s t s - -e minor w i l l and b e s of t h be - served 2 t h e r e q u e s t e d appointment (Emphasis and b r a c k e t e d m a t e r i a l added.) . . ." The r e c o r d h e r e d i s c l o s e s no n o t i c e t o , o r w r i t t e n waiver of n o t i c e by, e i t h e r Boulder River School o r t h e minor, making f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d n o t i c e s have been given impossible. Likewise, given t h e f a c t t h a t t h e minor was i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n a s a r e s i d e n t of Boulder River School, a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor would be s e r v e d w i t h o u t examination i n t o h i s p o s s i b l e medical and mental problems i s improper and i n d i c a t e s t h e procedure was t o o summary. A l l i n a l l , it appears t h a t these s t a t u t o r y safeguards f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e minor were e i t h e r ignored o r overlooked. I f g u a r d i a n s of any minors a r e being appointed i n such a "summary" f a s h i o n , t h e n t h e s t a t e i s undoubtedly committing a g r e a t i n j u s t i c e t o some of t h e s e minors, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r mental c a p a c i t y . The concept of g u a r d i a n s h i p was designed t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h o s e i n c a p a b l e of p r o t e c t i n g themselves. I f t h e appointing court ignores t h e a v a i l a b l e s t a t u t o r y p r o t e c t i o n s of t h e m i n o r ' s i n t e r e s t , t h e n t h e s t a t u t o r y scheme and e n t i r e g u a r d i a n s h i p concept become f a r c e s . A l l minors, r e g a r d l e s s of mental c o n d i t i o n , a r e d e f i n e d a s p e r s o n s i n need of p r o t e c t i o n . 5-201 e t seq. S e c t i o n 91A- To i n s u r e t h e y r e c e i v e t h e needed p r o t e c t i o n , t h e procedure f o r a p p o i n t i n g a g u a r d i a n f o r them should be a s r i g o r o u s l y followed a s t h e procedure f o r a p p o i n t i n g a g u a r d i a n of a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d a d u l t . W a g r e e t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e i n v o l v i n g an a p p a r e n t l y see v e r e l y r e t a r d e d boy r e s i d i n g i n Boulder may c a l l f o r s p e c i a l consideration. I n such c a s e s , t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n for appointment of an attorney to represent the minor, as was belatedly done here, comes into play. Section 91~-5-207(4), R.C.M. 1947. Special consideration for persons in this minor's position is afforded by the statutes governing release of a resident from Boulder River School. R.C.M. Section 38-1222(1), 1947, requires a specific habilitation plan, designed to "maximize his human talents and enhance his ability to cope with his environment". Each individualized habilita- tion plan, which is to be supervised by a medical doctor or a specialist in developmental disabilities, is to include plans for discharge from the institution. . 1222 (4)(f) Section 38- Each resident discharged to the community is to have a transitional habilitation assistance program. Sec- tion 38-1222(8). Notice and the possibility of a hearing on the patient's release are provided in section 38-1209(3), R.C.M. 1947. These release provisions in combination with a proper minors guardian proceeding would doubly insure that the best interests and welfare of a minor such as the minor here involved were served. Because of the procedural defects specified above, the District Court was without authority to make the original appointment of Frisch as the minor's guardian. Chambers, supra. Grauman v. Therefore, she had for the period between the original defective appointment and these proceedings, only the status of a guardian de facto of the minor. In that capacity, she has acted on behalf of the minor with the apparent acquiescence of the administrator of Boulder ~ i v e r School, one of the parties on which she originally failed to serve notice of the guardianship proceedings in February. We also note that the only parties objecting to her serving a s t h i s m i n o r ' s g u a r d i a n have been t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agenc i e s which have s i n c e withdrawn from t h e c a s e . I n a c t i n g a s t h i s minor's guardian p e t i t i o n e r has a t t e m p t e d t o e n r o l l him i n a p u b l i c s c h o o l s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n class. T h a t a t t e m p t h a s r e s u l t e d i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e pro- c e e d i n g s which a r e pending a t t h i s t i m e and a t which t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor need t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d . There may b e pending o t h e r s i m i l a r m a t t e r s p e t i t i o n e r h a s u n d e r t a k e n a s t h e m i n o r ' s g u a r d i a n which d o n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d . U n t i l a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n h a s been made w e see no de r e a s o n why p e t i t i o n e r may n o t c o n t i n u e t o a c t a s g u a r d i a n f a c t o of t h e minor under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t o a l l pending matters. Allowing h e r t o d o s o a t t h i s t i m e would b e s t s e r v e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e minor. In r e G u a r d i a n s h i p of French ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 540, 543 P.2d 173. Therefore a w r i t w i l l i s s u e d i r e c t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o h o l d a h e a r i n g and c o n d u c t f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s on F r i s c h ' s p e t i t i o n i n accordance w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t o r y procedures s p e c i f i e d herein. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t v a c a t i n g l e t t e r s of g u a r d i a n s h i p i s s t a y e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o a l l pending m a t t e r s i n which p e t i t i o n e r h a s s e r v e d a s g u a r d i a n o f t h e minor u n t i l a f i n a l judgment on h e r p e t i t i o n f o r guardianship i s rendered. W e Concur: '7 3/.& 5iL-Fc An- / I . Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.