[This is a continuation of my comments on proposed changes to the Michigan Department of Community Health Self-Determination Guideline.]
Most guardians of people with developmental disabilities are parents, other family members, or sometimes close family friends who have intimate knowledge of the needs and preferences of the individual with DD. Guardianship has legal standing and legal responsibilities. It is an invaluable tool that gives decision-making authority to families and friends so that they are better able to speak and act on behalf of their loved-ones, monitor living situations and services, assure that the rights of the individual are respected, and take action when things go wrong.
The draft Guideline, on page 10, says that “the PIHP/CMHSP shall have the discretion to limit the use of arrangements that support self-determination by individuals who have guardians because of the inherent tension between the principles of self-determination and the legal authority of guardians.” It goes on to say that, “despite this tension, the goal of guardianship--to maximize self-reliance and independence (MCL 330.1602)—is consistent with the principles of self-determination.” This is an incomplete statement of the goal of guardianship.
This is what the law actually says (MCL 330.1602):
Guardianship for individuals with developmental disability shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the individual, including protection from neglect, exploitation, and abuse; shall take into account the individual's abilities; shall be designed to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence in the individual; and shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental and adaptive limitations.
It is the duty of the guardian to protect the ward from neglect, abuse, and exploitation, to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence, and to take into account the person’s actual and adaptive limitations. The Probate Court makes findings in each case that determine the extent of the guardian’s authority.
If there is any inconsistency here, it is that the theory of self-determination as it is interpreted by many of its proponents, is inconsistent with reality and does not recognize the actual limitations that many people with DD have. Neither does it recognize the authority of the court in protecting people who are unable to speak on their own behalf.