Halderman, by Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hosp.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1197,Nos. 82-1147,No. 82-1147,82-1197,82-1147,s. 82-1147
• Citation: 707 F.2d 702
• Parties: Terri Lee HALDERMAN, a retarded citizen, by her mother and guardian, Winifred HALDERMAN, et al., Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSPITAL, et al. Appeal of W.M. and B.M. the Parents of P.M., a minor, inTerri Lee HALDERMAN, a retarded citizen, by her mother and guardian, Winifred HALDERMAN, et al., Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSPITAL, et al. Appeal of The Commissioners and Mental Health/Mental Retardation Administrator of CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, in
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 702

707 F.2d 702

Terri Lee HALDERMAN, a retarded citizen, by her mother and

guardian, Winifred HALDERMAN, et al., Pennsylvania

Association for Retarded Citizens, et

al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSPITAL, et al.

Appeal of W.M. and B.M. the Parents of P.M., a minor, in No.

82-1147.

Terri Lee HALDERMAN, a retarded citizen, by her mother and

guardian, Winifred HALDERMAN, et al., Pennsylvania

Association for Retarded Citizens, et

al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSPITAL, et al.

Appeal of The Commissioners and Mental Health/Mental

Retardation Administrator of CHESTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA, in No. 82-1197.

Nos. 82-1147, 82-1197.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1982.

Decided May 10, 1983.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied May 24, 1983.

Steven M. Coren (argued), Kittredge, Kaufman & Donley, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants W.M. and B.M., the parents of P.M., a minor.

Thomas M. Kittredge (argued), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Chester County.

David Ferleger (argued), Alexander Ewing, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Penelope A. Boyd, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Thomas K. Gilhool (argued), Frank J. Laski, Michael Churchill, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Pa. Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, et al.

LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., Debra K. Wallet, Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for amicus curiae the Com. of Pa.

Before ALDISERT, SLOVITER, and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

This appeal follows a district court order directing the transfer of P.M., a voluntarily committed, profoundly retarded minor child, from the Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a facility for the mentally retarded, to a community living arrangement (CLA) in Chester County. The district court issued its order after adopting a master's report recommending the transfer. P.M.'s parents and the County of Chester, appellants herein, argue that: the master's factual findings, as adopted by the district court, were clearly erroneous; and the transfer order violated the parents' constitutional rights. Because Judge Rosenn and I conclude that the hearing master and the district court erred, the judgment of the district court will be reversed.

I.

A complicated procedural history forms the backdrop for this case. In its initial decision, the district court, relying on the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, held that Pennhurst was an unconstitutional mode of providing residential services to the mentally retarded. Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 446 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D.Pa.1978). It ordered that Pennhurst be phased out and that its residents be placed in CLAs. Pursuant to Rule 53, F.R.Civ.P., the court appointed a special master who was empowered to "plan, organize, direct, supervise and monitor" the transition to the CLAs. Id. at 1326-28.

On appeal, we essentially affirmed the district court's order, but relied on federal statutory grounds rather than the United States Constitution. Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir.1979). We vacated that portion of the trial court's order mandating that Pennhurst be closed and remanded the case for "individual determinations by the court, or by the Special Master, as to the appropriateness of an improved Pennhurst for each such patient." Id. at 114. Although we established a presumption in favor of placing individuals in CLAs, we emphasized that the "special needs and desires of individual patients must not be neglected in the process." Id. at 115. We made no mention of parental rights with respect to the transfer of minor children and did not indicate whether any such transfer had to be voluntary.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 9, 1980, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman 447 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 2984, 64 L.Ed.2d 853 (1980), and on June 30, 1980, pending its final disposition of the appeal, stayed our judgment to the extent that we mandated the movement of Pennhurst residents to CLAs, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 448 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 3046, 65 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1980) (interim order granting stay). The Court then reversed our decision, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing under the applicable federal statute, and remanded the case for further consideration. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). On remand we again affirmed the original relief ordered by the district court, this time on state law grounds, Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 673 F.2d 647 (3d Cir.1982). The Supreme Court again granted certiorari, Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 457 U.S. 1131, 102 S.Ct. 2956, 73 L.Ed.2d 1348 (U.S.1982), but has yet to dispose of the appeal.

On the basis of our first appellate decision, the district court mandated that individual habilitation plans (IHPs) be developed supporting the transfer of Pennhurst's school age residents to CLAs. Although parents were permitted to participate as members of their child's IHP "team," parental consent to any transfer was not required. The IHP was first to be submitted to a court-appointed master. If the parents objected to the recommendations of the IHP, they could demand a hearing before the master for the purpose of determining "whether the living arrangements and services being provided the residents at Pennhurst [were] more beneficial to the resident's habilitation than the living arrangements and services which [had] been made ready in the community in accordance with the IHP." Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, No. 74-1345, at 65 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 24, 1980) (order establishing transfer procedures), reprinted in app. at 25a. After such hearing, the master was to prepare a report for district court consideration. Parents could then file exceptions to the master's report with the district court under Rule 53, F.R.Civ.P. In light of the Supreme Court stay of June 30, 1980, the district court further ordered that no resident of Pennhurst could be transferred to a CLA unless such transfer was voluntary.

The question of P.M.'s transfer arose on October 13, 1981, when his IHP was prepared proposing that he be transferred from Pennhurst, where he had resided for over nine years, to a CLA in Chester County. The parents objected, calling into play a master's hearing. At the hearing, the parents refused to consent to the transfer. Two mental retardation professionals and representatives of Pennsylvania and Chester County, testified in support of the parents' position.

Notwithstanding these objections, the hearing master filed a report finding that the proposed transfer of P.M. was both "voluntary" and "more beneficial" and ordered "that the County ... is authorized and directed to proceed with the proposed placement of ... P.M. ...." Report of Hearing Master at 23-24, reprinted in app. at 298a-99a. Pursuant to Rule 53, F.R.Civ.P., the parents filed exceptions in the district court to the hearing master's report, asserting, inter alia, that the hearing master's finding and order violated the parents' constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their minor child. On February 26, 1982, after holding a hearing on the parents' exceptions, and sitting without a jury, the district court adopted the hearing master's report and dismissed all of the exceptions. On March 10, 1982, P.M. was transferred to the CLA where he remains today.

The parents and Chester County now appeal, asserting that the district court's transfer order should be reversed because: (1) the findings of the court and the hearing master are clearly erroneous, and (2) in reaching its decision the court violated the parents' constitutional rights. ¹ The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has filed an amicus curiae brief in which it endorses the appellants' position.

II.

Appellants' arguments before this court raise both constitutional and non-constitutional claims. Because a court "will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of," Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1941) (Brandeis, J., concurring), I will address the non-constitutional contention first.

Appellants contend that the master erred in "[f]inding that the proposed community placement of P.M. [would be] 'more beneficial' than his remaining at Pennhurst ...." ² Exceptions to Hearing Master's Report at 4, reprinted in app. at 303a. Under Rule 53(e)(2), F.R.Civ.P., the district judge in a non-jury action shall accept the master's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and our review of a trial court's adoption of a master's findings is governed by that same standard. Ray v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 614 F.2d 729, 730 (10th Cir.1980); International Industries, Inc. v. Warren Petroleum Corp., 248 F.2d 696, 699 (3d Cir.1957), cert. dismissed, 355 U.S. 943, 78 S.Ct. 529, 2 L.Ed.2d 523 (1958). Further, we will reverse a district court's findings under the clearly erroneous standard only if they are "completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support," or bear "no rational relationship to the supporting evidentiary data." Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1302 (3d Cir.1972).

In support of his finding, the hearing master relied on four factors: (1) the presumption in favor of community placement established by this court, ³ Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir.1979); (2) evidence that the CLA staff had resolved many, but not all, of the safety and programmatic concerns previously noted...