Petition of Pickles, F-437

• Decision Date: 12 January 1965
• Docket Number: No. F-437,F-437
• Citation: 170 So.2d 603
• Parties: Petition of Jeanette PICKLES to declare her daughter, Muriel Pickles, Incompetent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 603

170 So.2d 603

Petition of Jeanette PICKLES to declare her daughter, Muriel Pickles, Incompetent.

No. F-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 12, 1965.

S. Gunter Toney, Tallahassee, for appellant.

RAWLS, Judge.

Upon the petition of her mother, an examining committee composed of two medical doctors and a layman was convened on the 11th day of April, 1964 by the County Judge of Gadsden County, Florida, for the purpose of inquiring into the competency of Muriel Pickles. On April 14, 1964, this committee, after making an examination of the alleged incompetent, filed its report with the County Judge in which they determined that she was incompetent 'by reason of mental incompetency, to-wit: mental disease; that same is acute; that she has no particular hallucinations; that she is of the age of 29 and her propensities were that she leaves home for several days at a time; and that she does not require mechanical restraint to prevent her from self-injury or violence to others.' The county judge after considering this report and receiving extensive testimony adjudicated Muriel Pickles mentally incompetent but did not order commitment. She filed notice of appeal from said order on the same date.

The sole point presented by appellant on this appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication of incompetency.

Appellant's history, as developed by the testimony of her parents and the medical experts, discloses: Muriel Pickles, age 29, was one of 9 children of Joe and Jeanette Pickles of Havana, Florida. In high school she was a cheer leader, played basketball, and was elected homecoming queen. She went to Washington for two years where she worked for a congressman, for the un-American Activities Committee, and for the F.B.I. When she failed to write home for a three months' period, her family after several telephone calls located her in a home for pregnant girls. Her father sent her money for her medical expenses and for the trip home. During the next four years she and her baby--a boy, now 6 years old--lived at her parents' home in Havana, Florida. A part of that time she worked for the State Road Department where she got into trouble, apparently with the credit union. Rather than be fired or demoted she went to work for the Florida Legislature and later for a Tallahassee attorney. About that time she had several small checks [2.00 to $5.00 to $10.00] bounce due to insufficient funds. She then moved to Naples where she worked for an insurance company. When caught embezzling funds ($960 to $1,960) from petty cash, she contended that her boss also took money from that source without signing slips . She was released in the care of her parents with the understanding her father would make restitution in monthly installments. She has earned as much as $345.00 per month when employed, but has been living at home, unemployed, for the last 4 months. She leaves home for several days at a time without informing her family of her plans. On occasions they have found her staying with a friend in Havana. Her mother cares for her small son during these absences. Muriel thinks her parents are always reminding her of her mistakes. Her parents, who have been told by several of Muriel's employers that she needs help, feel that they impose no restrictions on her, that any mention they make of her past mistakes is in the nature of helping her so she will not repeat them in the future, and that she is irresponsible to the extent she absents herself from home leaving the care of her child to her mother. They feel that if she moves away from their home she will get into more trouble and the financial burden of her 'mistakes' is more than they are able to afford. They want her to have medical treatment if she needs it.

The lay member of the examining committee testified that he talked to Muriel's father and mother at which time they 'briefed me on the situation' and that Muriel when asked if she would have herself committed, replied, 'No'. Upon cross examination, he stated that he read the statement the doctors gave and according to his understanding of Muriel's behavior she was endangering her health and the child's in that she was neglecting the child. He felt that Muriel needs advice.

One of the medical doctors who has practiced for 50 years (specializing in obstetrics) testified that he had observed Muriel Pickles, that he was the family physician and that he had known her for a long time. In response to the court's question, 'Is it your opinion she is in need of psychiatric help?' this doctor testified that her past history as related by her parents indicates that she needs psychiatric treatment. His only other testimony on direct examination was that he concurred in the other examining physician's tentative diagnosis. On cross examination, this doctor stated that Muriel came to his office voluntarily, that he talked to her parents procuring a history from them prior to her visit, and that he didn't ask Muriel any questions. In response to the question, 'The report here shows the tentative diagnosis of schizophrenia. Would you define?' the doctor answered, 'I think she needs psychiatric treatment.' He further testified, 'She was schizophrenic from history--the way she was doing,' and the next answer to a question concerning mental diseases was, 'I am not familiar with schizophrenia; not a psychiatrist.' He then states that the symptoms displayed by a schizophrenic are, 'They run away from home--different things.' His basis for concurring in the other doctor's diagnosis of schizophrenia was from the family history related to him of her actions in leaving home. He further testified that Muriel was not in any way dangerous to herself or anyone else; that he did not classify her as being insane.

It is interesting to note that after the testimony was taken of those two members of the examining committee and of a doctor produced on behalf of Muriel, the judge advised Muriel's attorney that he was going to continue the hearing, he would be glad to disuss the matter, and in the event 'nothing is worked out', he would like to have the other examining doctor's testimony. Muriel was left on her own as far as liberty was concerned until a final disposition was made of the matter.

On April 22, 1964, the hearing was reconvened to receive the testimony of the remaining member of the examining committee, a general practicing surgeon of 28 years. In his opinion the patient exhibited signs of schizophrenia though he could not classify the type because to do so is very difficult and requires a long period of observation. In answer to the court's question, 'In your opinion, could she be benefited by treatment?' he answered that he thought so since this type of mental illness is very amenable to treatment. The crucial questions and answers on direct examination by the court to this doctor upon whose diagnosis appellant was adjudicated incompetent are as follows:

'Q From your examination and the conclusions that you have reached in this case, do you feel that counsel and advice from a general practitioner such as you and Dr. * * * would be sufficient without psychiatric treatment?

'A Sometimes it is, but the fallacy in that, the reason it fails, is that so often-times we don't have complete co-operation from the patient. They might have appointments and not keep them; that's what I mean. The main thing I think in this, as in most all mental illnesses, is the desire to get well. If a person really desires to get well, they probably would keep appointments; if they don't, they would not keep appointments; that is, without institutional care.

'Q Doctor, is it or is it not true, that for different types of ailments, a person that specializes in that particular disease or illness is more beneficial?

'A Much more so, because they know where a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and/or psychiatrist would certainly be better able and more capable of getting into the basic problems of why patient was sick, mentally sick. I think they certainly are much more capable.

'Q From your examination and what you have observed as to the condition of this patient, do you feel that in your opinion, it would be to her best interests to commit her to the Florida State Hospital for treatment?

'A Yes, I do. I think that anybody with this type of mental illness would be much more benefited by institutional care than by care on the outside. It's what I was trying to stress a while ago, that the failing of keeping appointments, even if they attended a psychiatrist on the outside, they may keep some and break some appointments; the cost is prohibitive almost for private psychiatric care. It's bad it is, but it is.

'Q You do feel that her condition is such that she should have psychiatric care?

'A I think she would be much benefited by it, yes.

'Q Anything you want to add to what you have stated and what your report shows?

'A Yes, I would. It is terribly difficult, and I'm sure the Judge realizes this, as everyone knows in this short period of time to make any specific diagnosis on mental illness or any other type of illness. It takes sometimes weeks of study and observation to make a final diagnosis, a correct diagnosis, especially on mental illnesses. The Judge is not a Legislator, but I hope that sometime we will have laws so that patients can be placed somewhere, where they can be observed every day for a period of weeks. I think they will sometime; that way we could reach a much more correct diagnosis; talking to a patient for 15 or 30 minutes even in your office or jail where so many times we have to examine them----

'Q Do you feel that this patient's condition is such that she should have daily observation?

'A I think so, yes. I think that she would be helped a great deal. That's one of the bad things about schizophrenia. It's a disease of young people. The average is about 25 at onset; I notice she is 29. That's the...