In a complaint filed in federal court in Utah earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Disability Law Center argued the law — SB199 — violates the American With Disabilities and the Rehabilitation acts, as well as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants equal protection under the law to all citizens.
Sponsored by Sen. Kevin Stratton, R-Orem, and signed by Cox on March 17, SB199 creates a separate guardianship proceeding for people with a “severe” intellectual disability. To qualify, a physician or psychologist must sign a letter “that indicates that the adult is an individual with a severe intellectual disability,” the bill reads.
Guardianship is a legal process where someone, typically a family member, can ask a court to determine whether a person with a disability 18 years old or older is unable to make decisions and manage their affairs.
With permission from a court, the guardian could then determine personal care and make financial and legal decisions for the disabled person. According to the Utah Parent Center, it can shield disabled people from manipulation and crime, allowing them to live a safer life. But it also limits the civil rights of the person under guardianship, taking away their authority to make adult decisions.
The bill had the backing from several families of people with intellectual disabilities, who say the current system is too broad and not tailored to the most severely handicapped. More than 200 people signed on to a petition in support of the bill.
“It makes sense to create a new and separate guardianship statutory section specifically for those with a severe intellectual disability and a lifelong functional limitation that began as a minor,” said Lisa Thornton, an attorney, when speaking in favor of the bill during this year’s legislative session. “Separating our population from the elderly, or ones who once had capacity, allows for greater protection for those with severe intellectual disabilities without impacting or creating restrictions on the elderly, or those who may regain capacity.”
But during the session, both the ACLU and Disability Law Center spoke out against the bill. On April 18, the groups filed a lawsuit.
In the 42-page complaint, the groups argue the law creates a “separate, harsher” guardianship system based on a classification of “severe intellectual disability” — a term they say is “circular and vague.”
“‘Severe intellectual disability’ is not a term with a clear, well-established meaning among clinicians,” the complaint reads, adding that it requires physicians to make a diagnosis that is typically made by the court.
The law also allows a guardian to “restrict the disabled person’s association with friends and family, the right to control their food and beverage consumption, and the right to restrict any activity that the guardian believes would be harmful,” according to court documents. Typically, guardians can place restrictions on an individual basis — for instance, preventing an abusive former partner from visiting. But SB199 allows for blanket restrictions, which the complaint says is a violation of the person’s rights.
Additionally, the law creates a carveout where the disabled person wouldn’t be granted an attorney in cases where a parent, grandparent or sibling is the prospective guardian, the groups argue.
For those reasons, the groups allege the state is in violation of the American With Disabilities and the Rehabilitation acts, as well as the 14th Amendment.
“SB199 creates a separate, more restrictive guardianship for a class of people with disabilities and denies them the same rights as others, like the right to talk with friends or relatives, solely based on a doctor describing the severity of a diagnosis,” said Nate Crippes, the public affairs supervising attorney for the Disability Law Center.
“It also doesn’t allow for individualized determinations for this population, as is required by the ADA,” he added.“ And by limiting the right to associate, if a guardian is abusive or neglectful, we fear no one will know. On the other hand, studies show a person with greater self-determination is more likely to identify an abusive situation and less likely to experience it.”
In addition to Cox and the state of Utah, the lawsuit names Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, the Utah Judicial Council, State Court Administrator Ronald Gordon Jr., the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts and the Utah State Court system.
The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
This report was originally published at UtahNewsDispatch.com.
