Conservatorship Of Valerie N.

707 P.2d 760 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mildred and Eugene G.(Ps), her mother and stepfather, are coconservators of the person of their adult developmentally disabled daughter, Valerie (D). D is a victim of Downs Syndrome and she is severely retarded. Her IQ is estimated to be 30. She is now 29 years old. She lives with Ps. Ps' long-range plan is that she D will move to a residential home should they become mentally or physically unable to care for her. D has received therapy and training for behavior modification which was not successful in eliminating her aggressive sexual advances toward men. Ps originally filed their petition to be named conservators also seeking the additional power to authorize 'a Salpingectomy or any other operation that will permanently sterilize' D. The petition was supported by the declaration of D's personal physician who stated that the tubal ligation procedure is 'advisable and medically appropriate.' D had no comprehension of the proceedings, could not complete an affidavit of voter registration, and gave no pertinent response when asked if she objected to being disqualified from voting. The court granted the petition for the conservatorship. Ps then presented evidence on the sterilization. D's doctor and a licensed marriage, family, and child counselor both testified for the procedure. The latter stating that D acted 'affectionately' toward adult men and made 'inappropriate' sexual advances toward them. This made it necessary for Ps to be overly restrictive in order to avoid a possible pregnancy and these restrictions would have 'severe psychologically damaging consequences' to D. D was aggressive and affectionate toward boys. On the street, she approached men, hugged and kissed them, climbed on them, and wanted to sit on their laps. Birth control pills made her ill. D was unable to apply other methods of birth control such as a diaphragm, and would not cooperate in a pelvic examination for an intrauterine device. No evidence was offered to establish that D is capable of conceiving, and other than the opinions of her mother and the family counselor no evidence was offered to establish that alternative less intrusive methods of birth control are unavailable. D’s counsel questioned the court’s jurisdiction. The trial judge denied the request as sterilization under subdivision (d) of section 2356 was unconstitutional. The court held it lacks jurisdiction to authorize the sterilization of a conservatee. Ps claimed the law preventing sterilization was unconstitutional in that it precluded the only effective means of contraception available to D. D’s counsel contends that the legislation furthers that right by protecting her against sterilization forced upon her by the will of others.