Under New York’s Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Article 81, the presence of the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) at the guardianship hearing is generally considered essential to ensure their rights are protected. However, there are circumstances where the court may dispense with the AIP’s presence if it determines that attendance would be detrimental or impractical.
Legal Framework
MHL § 81.11(b) specifically addresses this issue, providing that the alleged incapacitated person should be present at the hearing. The Court should only dispense with AIP’s presence if the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that their attendance would likely cause harm or is otherwise not feasible. This provision balances the AIP’s right to participate in the proceedings with their physical and emotional well-being.
In Matter of Lillian UU, 66 A.D.3d 1219; 887 N.Y.S.2d 321 (3rd Dept. 2009), the court clarified that the AIP’s presence is a fundamental aspect of due process and should not be lightly excused. The decision emphasized that the presumption of attendance must be overcome with specific, credible evidence demonstrating harm or impracticality.
Similarly, in Matter of Gulizar N.O., 111 A.D.3d 749; 974 N.Y.S.2d 801 (2nd Dept. 2013), the court underscored that dispensing with AIP’s presence should be the exception rather than the rule. The court in Gulizar N.O. highlighted the importance of clear and convincing evidence to justify the decision and reiterated that the AIP’s rights must remain at the forefront of the proceedings.
Circumstances for Dispensing with Presence
- Severe Physical or Mental Condition: The court may dispense with AIP’s presence if medical evidence demonstrates that their physical or mental condition is so severe that appearing in court would pose a risk to their health or exacerbate their condition. For example, an individual in critical medical condition or experiencing acute psychological distress may be excused.
- Risk of Harm: If attending the hearing would likely result in emotional trauma or harm to the AIP, the court may find it appropriate to proceed in their absence. This often requires testimony or affidavits from medical professionals or caregivers.
- Impracticality Due to Logistics: In some cases, the AIP’s physical location or logistical challenges, such as being hospitalized or residing in a facility far from the courthouse, may make attendance impractical. However, the court will typically explore alternative arrangements, such as remote participation via video conferencing, before excusing attendance entirely.
- Consent and Agreement: If the AIP has the capacity to understand and voluntarily consents to not attending, the court may consider this factor. However, such consent must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is informed and free from coercion.
When the Court Will Not Dispense with AIP’s Presence
There are instances where the court will insist on the AIP’s attendance, emphasizing their fundamental right to participate in proceedings that directly affect their autonomy and well-being. These situations include:
- Contested Hearings: If there are disputes regarding the need for guardianship or the suitability of a proposed guardian, the court may require the AIP’s presence to provide testimony or respond to questions. This ensures that the AIP’s voice is heard directly.
- Capacity Determinations: In cases where the AIP’s capacity is in question, their demeanor, responses, and interactions during the hearing may be critical for the court’s assessment. The court’s ability to observe the AIP firsthand is often essential in these situations. This principle was reinforced in Matter of Lillian UU, where the court noted that firsthand observation of the AIP can be pivotal in contested capacity evaluations.
- Lack of Clear Evidence: If the evidence supporting a request to dispense with the AIP’s presence is insufficient or inconclusive, the court may decline to excuse attendance to ensure full due process. In Matter of Gulizar N.O., the court emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support the decision, warning against any shortcuts that might undermine the AIP’s rights.
- Judicial Preference for Personal Observation: Some judges may have a strong preference for observing the AIP in person to make a well-informed decision, particularly in borderline cases.
The Role of the Court Evaluator in Dispensing with AIP’s Presence
The court evaluator plays a critical role in providing the court with information regarding the AIP’s condition and circumstances. The evaluator’s report often includes recommendations on whether the AIP should be present at the hearing and the potential impact of their attendance.
Ensuring Due Process
When the court decides to dispense with AIP’s presence, it must document its findings and the evidence supporting its decision. This ensures that the AIP’s due process rights are preserved and that the decision can withstand appellate review if challenged. Conversely, when the court requires the AIP’s presence, it must ensure appropriate accommodations are made to facilitate their attendance, such as transportation or virtual participation.
Conclusion
While the default expectation under MHL Article 81 is that the alleged incapacitated person will attend the guardianship hearing, courts have discretion to Dispense with AIP’s Presence in specific circumstances. Equally, there are situations where the court will insist on the AIP’s presence to uphold their rights and ensure a fair and thorough evaluation of the case. Legal practitioners should be prepared to argue both for and against the AIP’s presence, depending on the circumstances, while always prioritizing the AIP’s well-being and legal protections. Decisions such as Matter of Lillian UU and Matter of Gulizar N.O. underscore the importance of this balance and provide critical guidance for courts and practitioners alike.
For more information, please contact NYC Probate Litigation, Guardianship, Probate, and Estate Planning attorney Regina Kiperman:
Phone: 917-261-4514
Fax: 929-556-2089
Email: rkiperman@rklawny.com
Or visit her at:
40 Wall Street
Suite 2508
New York, NY 10005
Visit Regina on LinkedIn
Visit Regina on Facebook
This page is made available by the lawyer for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the lawyer. The post should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.