Mental Health Association of Connecticut Weighs In on Gross v. Rell

At the recommendation of its Public Policy Committee, on May 12, 2010, the MHAC board of directors unanimously passed a resolution to sign on as a friend of the court in the case of Gross v. Rell.

In a striking miscarriage of justice, Daniel Gross, an 86 year old New York man, hospitalized with cellulitis while visiting his daughter in Waterbury, was appointed a conservator by the probate court, without his permission, or even his presence in the courtroom. Mr. Gross was locked in a nursing home for ten months by this court-appointed conservator while his family bickered over who should have control over his assets.

This case is important for all persons with disabilities, especially psychiatric disabilities, because the duty owed by the attorney to the person represented, including those being subjected to a competency hearing, is the same as it would be to any other client. It appears not all officers of the court are quite on board with this concept yet.

Under Connecticut practice, lawyers should abide by their clients’ decisions concerning the objectives of representation, yet right now lawyers, court-appointed conservators, and even nursing homes have immunity from this practice. The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the people with such great power and authority over other people’s lives accountable for their actions and put an end to that immunity. Court appointed conservators and/or attorneys will have to represent their clients with disabilities with the same amount of enthusiasm and responsibility as their clients without disabilities.

The conservatorship was eventually overturned and Mr. Gross went home to live in New York, but the slipshod, under-regulated probate court system is still exactly as it was when Mr. Gross was unwillingly dragged into it. This must not continue.

Source:
Rock the Boat

See Also:
Read Gross v. Rell, No. 08-2626