Thomas S. By Brooks v. Flaherty, C-C-82-418-M.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C-C-82-418-M.,C-C-82-418-M. |
| Citation | 699 F. Supp. 1178 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | THOMAS S., by his guardian ad litem, Joyce M. BROOKS, Jeanette H., Todd C., Phillip B. and Margaret R., by her guardian ad litem, Cornelius Manly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. David T. FLAHERTY, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and Allen Childress, in his official capacity as guardian for plaintiff Thomas S., Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edward G. Connette, Gillespie, Lesesne & Connette, Charlotte, N.C., Roger Manus and Deborah Greenblatt, Carolina Legal Assistance, Raleigh, N.C., for plaintiffs.
Wilson Hayman and Doris J. Holton, Asst. Attys. Gen., North Carolina Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for defendant Secretary of Human Resources.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Paul Caldwell, next friend of plaintiff Thomas S., filed this suit on July 7, 1982, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under federal and state law. Also on July 7, 1982, Mr. Caldwell was appointed guardian ad litem for Thomas S. On July 10, 1984, Joyce M. Brooks was substituted as guardian ad litem for Thomas S.
Thomas S., a nineteen-year-old Gaston County resident when this action was filed, had been diagnosed as suffering from, inter alia, schizophrenia and borderline mental retardation, and was incapable of either living independently or managing his own affairs. Given up for adoption at birth, Thomas spent his first eighteen years in approximately forty different foster homes and institutions while in the custody of the Gaston County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). DSS shuffled Thomas through so many placements during his youth because there were no appropriate community-based treatment facilities available in Gaston County during this period.
Soon after Thomas' eighteenth birthday, DSS succeeded in having Thomas declared legally incompetent. In February, 1982, defendant Allen Childress, regional adult mental health specialist with the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, was appointed Thomas' guardian. Because Childress considered Thomas' then-current placement, a rest home for the elderly, inappropriate, Childress caused Thomas to be admitted to the "R" (mental retardation) unit at Broughton Hospital on March 15, 1982.
Four months after Thomas was institutionalized at Broughton, his next friend brought this suit against Sarah Morrow, then Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources ("Secretary"); Allen Childress, in his official capacity as Thomas' guardian ("guardian"); and the directors of two local agencies, DSS and the Gaston-Lincoln area mental health program. The Gaston County Commissioners later were joined as additional defendants.
The complaint alleged that the defendants had denied Thomas substantive due process accorded by the Fourteenth Amendment. It protested the defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate treatment, alleging that Thomas' hospitalization imposed a degree of restraint on his liberty inconsistent with professional judgment regarding his treatment. The complaint charged that the defendants had deprived Thomas of liberty interests created by state law, a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint also asserted various pendent state law claims. Thomas requested an injunction ordering the defendants to place him in an appropriate group home and to provide other treatment recommended by professionals who had examined and worked with him.
On May 26, 1983, the court entered a consent judgment permitting the two local agency defendants to contract with an independent nonprofit organization for foster care and treatment from the date of Thomas' discharge from Broughton until March 1, 1984. Because of the consent order, the court deferred all parties' motions for summary judgment and declared the case inactive until February 1, 1984.
On March 22, 1984, four individuals, Jeanette H., Todd C., Phillip B. and Margaret R., moved to intervene as plaintiffs. The court appointed Cornelius Manly as guardian ad litem for Ms. R. on May 4, 1984. Also on March 22, 1984, these individuals joined Thomas S. in a motion to certify a statewide class of similarly situated individuals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The class is defined as:
adults who are mentally retarded or who have been treated as mentally retarded and who are or will be inappropriately kept in public psychiatric institutions in North Carolina in conditions violative of their constitutional rights.
After reactivating the case, the court found that Thomas had been shifted to at least three additional placements since the consent judgment was filed. On August 15, 1984, the court heard arguments on all pending motions. The court ruled on the cross motions for summary judgment on September 18, 1984. Thomas S. v. Morrow, 601 F.Supp. 1055 (W.D.N.C.1984). All pendent state law claims against state officials were dismissed, in accordance with Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). The claims against the local officials also were dismissed without prejudice. Relying on Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed. 2d 28 (1982), the court granted summary judgment against the Secretary and the guardian on Thomas' substantive due process claim without reaching the procedural due process claim.
On December 7, 1984, the court entered a judgment requiring the Secretary and the guardian to develop a treatment plan and appoint a case manager for Thomas. The judgment directed them to furnish Thomas the treatment recommended by qualified professionals who had evaluated his needs. In accordance with the recommendations, the order specified that Thomas should be placed in a "stable suitable supervised community residential placement such as: (1) a non-institutionalized specialized adult foster care situation ... or (2) a group home with adults of average intelligence." Adhering to the recommendations, the court also directed that Thomas should be provided non-residential services such as mental health counseling, adult basic education and vocational training, and "opportunities for community interaction." The Secretary and the guardian appealed.
Also on December 7, 1984, the court permitted the intervention of the four additional plaintiffs and certified the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander S. v. Boyd
...right to reasonable protection from the aggression of others, whether "others" be juveniles or staff. Thomas S. ex rel. Brooks v. Flaherty, 699 F.Supp. 1178, 1200 (W.D.N.C.1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S.Ct. 373, 112 L.Ed.2d 335 The interest in freed......
-
Wyatt by and through Rawlins v. Rogers
...appropriate medical and psychological criteria, and not on administrative convenience or nonmedical criteria. Thomas S. v. Flaherty, 699 F.Supp. 1178, 1183, 1200 (W.D.N.C.1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S.Ct. 373, 112 L.Ed.2d 335 (1990); Lelsz v. Kavan......
-
Heller v. Doe Doe
...been diagnosed as mentally ill as well as mentally retarded following their commitment on the latter ground. See Thomas S. v. Flaherty, 699 F.Supp. 1178, 1187 (WDNC 1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 250 (CA4), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951-952, 111 S.Ct. 373, 112 L.Ed.2d 335 (1990). The District Court fo......
-
Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare
...Courts are to be guided by the judgment of a qualified professional in determining what is reasonable. Id.; see Thomas S. v. Flaherty, 699 F.Supp. 1178, 1199 (W.D.N.C.1988) (noting that the "constitutional right of class members to treatment comporting with the judgment of qualified profess......
-
The Constitutional Right to Community Services
...F. Supp. 1055 (W.D.N.C. 1984); Thomas S. v. Morrow (Thomas S. II), 781 F.2d 367 (4th Cir. 1986); Thomas S. v. Flaherty (Thomas S. Ill), 699 F. Supp. 1178 (W.D.N.C. 1988); and Thomas S. v. Flaherty (Thomas S. IV), 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir. 1990). 125. Based on what turned out to be an incorrect......
-
SL 561, SB 26 – 1993-95 CAPITAL BUDGET
...the Focus Class/Evaluation Alternative Test Agreement in the case ofThomas S. et al. v. Britt, formerly Thomas S. et al. v. Flaherty, 699 F. Supp. 1178 (W.D.N.C. 1988). (b) The consent judgment authorized under subsection (a) of this section is subject to G.S. 114-2.2. Requested by: Represe......