Department of Mental Hygiene v. McGilvery

• Decision Date: 12 September 1958
• Citation: 50 Cal.2d 742,329 P.2d 689
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Laurence McGILVERY, as Executor of the Estate of Annie Christabel Girard, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant. L. A. 24830.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 689

329 P.2d 689

50 Cal.2d 742

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Laurence McGILVERY, as Executor of the Estate of Annie Christabel Girard, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

L. A. 24830.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Sept. 12, 1958.

Carter, Young, Zetterberg & Henrie and Richard T. Young, Pomona, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Ariel C. Hilton, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SHENK, Justice.

A rehearing was ordered to consider the contention of the defendant, first elaborated upon in the petition for rehearing, that the provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 6650 et seq., held by the court in the former opinion to impose an absolute liability on a mother to pay for the care, support and maintenance of her mentally ill daughter in a state institution, is a deprivation of property without equal protection of law and without just compensation in violation of the state and federal Constitutions.

In 1935 Joan McGilvery, daughter of the decedent, was adjudged mentally ill and from that time has been confined in state hospitals and maintained and provided for by state agencies whose interests the Department of Mental Hygiene now represent. When first confined Joan was the wife of Neil McGilvery. Their son Laurence, was three years of age. In 1936 the husband disappeared and his whereabouts remain unknown. Joan's mother took Laurence into her home and provided for his support and education. In 1955 she died. Her will was admitted to probate and Laurence, then an adult, was named as executor. Other than a $1,000 trust fund for the benefit of Joan, the estate was left to Laurence.

It appears that at the time of Joan's commitment, Mrs. Girard was a single woman, 63 years of age. She owned a home in Oakland from which she had an annual income of approximately $200. She supplemented that income with her earnings as a nurse, found to be about $20 a month. The only evidence of her earnings between the time of Joan's commitment and Mrs. Girard's death relates to the last four years of her life. During those years she had an income of approximately $100 a month, $50 a month from an investment fund derived, apparently, from the sale of her home, and $50 a month from federal old age benefits. At her death her estate was appraised at $14,504.69. It increased to $18,984.69 during administration.

The plaintiff Department of Mental Hygiene presented to the executor its claim against the estate for $4,737 for Joan's support and maintenance for the four year period immediately preceding Mrs. Girard's death. The executor rejected the claim and this action was commenced by the department to enforce payment. Judgment in the amount sought was for the plaintiff and the executor appealed. There is no dispute as to the amount of the claim. The only question is the liability of the estate for its payment.

The department's claim is based upon legislation found in the Welfare and Institutions Code which provides for the care and maintenance of mentally ill persons. Section 6650 provides in its pertinent parts: 'The husband, wife, father, mother, or children of a mentally ill person * * * shall cause him to be properly and suitably cared for and maintained * * *. The husband, wife, father, mother, or children of a mentally ill person * * * and the administrators of their estates * * * shall be liable for his care, support, and maintenance in a state institution of which he is an inmate. * * *' Section 6651 provides in part: 'The monthly rate for the care, support, and maintenance of all mentally ill * * * persons * * * at the state hospitals for the mentally ill where there is liability to pay for such care, support, and maintenance, shall be reviewed once each fiscal year and fixed at the state-wide average per capita cost of maintaining patients in all state hospitals for the preceding fiscal year, as determined by the Director of Mental Hygiene, and shall be payable in advance. * * * The Director of Mental Hygiene may reduce, cancel or remit the amount ot be paid by the estate or the relatives, as the case may be, liable for the care, support, and maintenance of any mentally ill * * * person * * * who is a patient of a state hospital for the mentally ill, on satisfactory proof that the estate or relatives, as the case may be, are unable to pay the cost of such care, support, and maintenance. * * *' In section 6652 the Department of Mental Hygiene is given the authority to take such action as may be necessary to effect the collection of the charges mentioned in section 6650.

In section 6653 it is provided that 'The department shall, following the admission of a patient into a State hospital for the insane * * * make an investigation to determine whether the patient has any relative or relatives responsible under the provisions of Section 6650 for the payment of the costs of * * * maintenance, and shall ascertain the financial condition of such relative or relatives to determine whether in each case such relative or relatives are in fact financially able to pay such charges. * * *'

Following Joan's commitment an investigation was conducted regarding Mrs. Girard's financial circumstances. No charge or other exaction was attempted to be collected from her under section 6650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, either at that time or during her lifetime.

It is claimed by the defendant that section 6650 does not impose on the persons named therein an absolute and unconditional liability for the support and maintenance of a mentally ill relative, but that liability is imposed only if the investigation mentioned in section 6653 reveals that those persons 'are in fact financially able to pay such charges.' It is obvious that the language of section 6650 cannot be considered alone, but that it must be considered with other sections in pari materia. County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie, 19 Cal.2d 634, 639, 122 P.2d 526. Section 6650 was enacted in 1937. It was based on the former Political Code, section 2176. That section contained the provisions, now set forth in all material respects in sections 6652 and 6653, as well as 6650, including the provision that the department shall make an investigation to determine the financial ability of named relatives to pay the charges for the support and maintenance of the mentally ill. Under the circumstances sections 6650 and 6653 'shall be construed as restatements and continuations * * * and not as new enactments' (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 2), and are to be considered together. Accordingly we must look to the construction given section 2176 of the Political Code prior to 1937.

Section 2176 when first enacted in 1903 (Stats.1903, p. 505) clearly made ability to pay a condition of liability. It provided that '* * * the husband, wife, father, mother, or children of an insane person, if of sufficient ability * * * shall be liable for the care, support and maintenance of any insane person in a state hospital * * *.' In 1909 that section was modified and the words 'if of sufficient ability' were deleted. Stats.1909, p. 71. In 1921 the section was again modified by the addition of a second paragraph requiring an investigation into the financial circumstances of the responsible parties to determine whether they were 'in fact financially able to pay such charges' provided for in the first paragraph. Stats.1921, p. 1335. In 1931 a further amendment did not alter the provisions of the same section in any respect material to the present inquiry. Stats.1931, p. 322. It was in 1937 that the section was divided. The first paragraph, providing for charges as against responsible relatives, became section 6650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The second paragraph, providing for an investigation into the financial circumstances of responsible relatives, became section 6653 of the same code.

It is significant that the Legislature had first expressly specified the relatives who were responsible as those 'of sufficient ability' to pay and thereafter deleted that requirement. The defendant contends that regardless of the deletion, the Lunacy Commission, then performing the functions of the Department of Mental Hygiene, continued to use ability to pay as a criterion in making charges after 1909. It appears in several of the Commission's biennial reports to the Legislature that ability to pay was considered as a factor in determining whether the Commission enforced its monthly charges. (See Reports of the State Commission in Lunacy, Attorneys' Reports: Vol. 4, Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly of California, 41st Session (1915), p. 24; Vol. 6, Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly of California 42nd Session (1917), p. 32; Vol. 1, Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly of California, 44th Session (1921), p. 19.) But there is nothing to indicate in either the statutes or in the administrative practices that ability to pay was a factor in determining liability for the charges after 1909. Likewise in 1921, when the provision for the investigation of the financial circumstances of responsible relatives was added there was no indication that the purpose of the added provision was to determine liability of relatives already made unequivocally liable. The language of the first paragraph of section 2176 and the change of the law in 1909 too clearly provided for the imposition of an initial liability to permit any other construction. The investigation provided for in the 1921 legislation must be deemed to serve some purpose and that purpose is apparent from companion sections first enacted in 1903. Section 2180 of the Political Code then enacted provided for the amount of monthly support to be paid by relatives of the mentally ill, and further provided that 'the medical superintendent of a state hospital for the insane shall, on the order of the commission, reduce or remit the amount to be paid by...