On October 8, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision in In the Matter of P.D.B. The decision found that the Chancery Court had violated the right to self-determination of an alleged incapacitated person, P.D.B., by imposing inappropriate restrictions on him at the time that the court dismissed the guardianship action that had been filed against him.
P.D.B. turned eighteen on December 17, 2020. His mother filed a petition to be appointed as his guardian on December 10, 2020. The Chancery Division appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for P.D.B. and imposed several conditions, including mandatory therapy and meetings with the GAL. The GAL's reports indicated that while P.D.B. had some vulnerabilities, he was functioning well and opposed the appointment of a guardian. M.M. withdrew her complaint in January 2023, citing difficulties in proving her case and the negative impact of the litigation on P.D.B.
Despite dismissing the guardianship complaint, the Chancery Court imposed conditions on P.D.B. for an additional two years, including continued therapy and biannual meetings with the GAL. In imposing these restrictions, the Chancery judge relied upon Court Rule 4:37-1(b), which allows the court to dismiss a complaint but still impose conditions on the litigants.
P.D.B. moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Chancery Court exceeded its authority and violated his constitutional rights. The court denied the motion but modified the order to limit the GAL's reporting to P.D.B.' s parents.
P.D.B. filed an appeal. He contended that the conditions violated his constitutional rights and applicable New Jersey law. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey,
the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Community Health Law Project participated in the appeal as amici curiae and supported P.D.B.' s position, arguing that the conditions violated his due process and other rights.
The Appellate Division reversed the Chancery Division's orders, stating that the court misapplied Rule 4:37-1(b) and its parens patriae authority, which is the court’s legal authority to act in a parental or protective role. The Appellate Division found that the conditions imposed did not serve to avoid duplicative litigation or preserve judicial efficiency, which is the purpose of Rule 4:37-1(b).
The Appellate Division ordered the Chancery Division to vacate its stay and enter a dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, effectively removing all imposed conditions on P.D.B. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division emphasized that the trial court had made no finding of incapacity, and therefore had no authority to impose conditions or continue the GAL's appointment. If found that the conditions imposed by the Chancery judge violated P.D.B.' s right to self-determination, medical confidentiality, and due process.
The decision underscored the importance of respecting the rights of individuals alleged to be incapacitated and the limitations of the court's authority in guardianship proceedings. It noted that the conditions imposed by the Chancery judge violated P.D.B.’s rights to self-determination under Article I, Paragraph 1. New Jersey Constitution. It further noted that, New Jersey “Supreme Court has long recognized this right and the clear public policy respecting the rights of all people, including the developmentally disabled,” which it found had been violated by the Chancery Division’s imposition of conditions in its order for dismissal.
The New Jersey guardianship attorneys at Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, LLC are available to assist if you have loved one in need of a guardianship. Call us at (732) 853-1725 to learn more.
Comments