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: N 0\/ 2 4978
Filed: h l ~ ; . ~fj~?
Mr. ~usticeGene 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 appoint-
i 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 ad-
m 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. To d a t e , t h i s motion h a s
n o t been a c t e d upon. 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. 210, 1 9 1
N.W.2d 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. She proceeded under
s e c t i o n s 91A-5-201 through 2 1 2 , R.C.M. 1947, r e l a t i n g t o
g u a r d i a n s of minors. 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. S e c t i o n 91A-5-
2 0 7 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 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. See s e c t i o n s 38-
1 2 0 3 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 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,
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.
1 369,
522 P.2d 1168, 1170. Her s t a t u s was merely t h a t of a guard-
ian - facto.
de 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-5-
1 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 con-
c 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 im-
p 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
w 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 ; " (Em-
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 . " S e c t i o n 91A-1-201(25),
R.C.M. 1947. 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 ap-
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 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 -
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. A t the same
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
guardianship f o r an incapacitated person. I n t h i s case, t h e
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 . Franklyn v.
Sprague ( 1 8 8 7 ) , 1 2 1 U.S. 215, 229, 7 S.Ct. 951, 958, 30
L.ed. 936, 941-42; 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian & 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 con-
t 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 neces-
s 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 . S e c t i o n 91A-
5-209, R.C.M. 1947; F r a n k l y n v . Sprague, s u p r a . But 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 implementa-
t 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 hap-
pened 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 appoint-
ment, 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 termina-
t 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
- served 2 t h e r e q u e s t e d appointment
be . . ."
(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 over-
looked. 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 . S e c t i o n 91A-
5-201 e t seq. 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 se-
e
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. Section 38-1222(1),
R.C.M. 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. Section 38-
1222 (4)(f). 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. Grauman v.
Chambers, supra. 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 agen-
c 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
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 -
de
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-F-
c An- / I .
Chief J u s t i c e