Lackner v. R. C.

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J. These appeals are from orders appointing the director of the department of health guardian of the persons of appellants, who are mentally disabled persons.

[419]Appellants contend that the appointment of the Director of Health as guardian of their persons, under section 416 of the Health and Safety Code, deprives them and other developmentally disabled persons similarly situated of the protection the relationship is presumed to provide because a conflict of interest is created. Appellants contend that the appointment of the Director of Health as their guardian reduces the guardian-ward relationship to a mere legal fiction.

Appellants concede that as developmentally disabled persons as defined in section 38003, subdivision (h),1 of the Health and Safety Code, they are in need of a guardian. Appellants point out that they presently reside in state institutions administered by the Director of Health, and that they are eligible for the services of the regional centers which are funded and controlled by the Director of Health. Appellants argue that inherent in this relationship is a potential conflict between the interests of appellants and the interests of their guardian, such that the interest of appellants cannot be adequately protected. They argue that the appointment of the State Director of Health as their guardian fails to provide them with the impartial agent necessary to protect their right to privacy, their right to refuse unnecessary medical or surgical treatment (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 7518), their right to receive effective treatment, and other civil rights accorded to wards or mentally disordered persons. (See Prob. Code, § 1461.5; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 416.23, 38110 [repealed Stats. 1976, ch. 1368, § 1; see now § 38223]; see also Health & Saf. Code, §§ 38002, 38004, 38009.1, 38223 [added Stats. 1976, chs. 1364, 1368, effective Jan. 1, 1977].) According to appellants, the director’s role as guardian of appellants and as protector of their rights and interests is in potential conflict with the director’s role as manager of the state mental hospital system. But appellants’ argument is contrary to the express provisions of the applicable statute. Section 416 of the Health and Safety Code provides as follows:

“The Director of Health may be appointed as either guardian or conservator of the person and estate, or person or estate, of any developmentally disabled person, who is either of the following: