## Facts

- Valerie N. was a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome and profound intellectual disability (estimated IQ around 30) who lived with her mother and stepfather.
- Valerie’s mother and stepfather were court-appointed coconservators of her person.
- The coconservators petitioned the probate court for authority to consent to Valerie’s permanent sterilization by tubal ligation (salpingectomy).
- The stated primary purpose of the proposed surgery was habilitation; any therapeutic benefit was incidental.
- The coconservators asserted Valerie was sexually affectionate and at times sexually aggressive toward men, creating a risk of pregnancy if future caregivers failed to supervise her closely.
- The coconservators argued less invasive contraception was not feasible: Valerie became ill on oral contraceptives, could not reliably use barrier methods, and would not cooperate with examination for an intrauterine device.
- Probate Code § 2356(d) barred “nontherapeutic” sterilization of conservatees.
- The probate court found the procedure medically safe and potentially beneficial to Valerie’s quality of life but denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 2356(d).

## Issues

1. Whether Probate Code § 2356(d) reflects legislative intent to deny guardians and conservators authority to consent to sterilization of wards and conservatees.
2. If § 2356(d) operates as an absolute bar, whether the statutory scheme violates state and federal constitutional guarantees—particularly privacy—by denying incompetent developmentally disabled persons meaningful procreative choice, including the choice to avoid pregnancy.
3. Whether the evidentiary record supported authorizing sterilization as necessary for Valerie and supported a finding that less intrusive means were unavailable.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s denial of the petition.
- The Court held the Legislature intended § 2356(d), enacted alongside repeal of prior sterilization authority, to end eugenic sterilization practices and to deny guardians and conservators authorization to sterilize their wards or conservatees.
- The Court further held that an absolute statutory prohibition on sterilization for incompetent developmentally disabled persons, while competent persons may choose sterilization, violates constitutional privacy guarantees.
- Nonetheless, the Court concluded the record did not establish that sterilization was necessary for Valerie’s habilitation or that less intrusive means to avoid conception were unavailable.
- The affirmance was without prejudice to a renewed petition and hearing with the required evidentiary showing.

## Legal Principles

- Guardians and conservators lack authority under general powers over the person to consent to sterilization when the governing statute withholds that authorization.
- A statutory scheme that categorically denies incompetent developmentally disabled persons access to sterilization, while permitting others to choose it, infringes constitutional privacy by denying the right to avoid procreation.
- Because sterilization is intrusive and irreversible, any court authorization for an incompetent adult requires strict, individualized proof of necessity for the person’s own interests and a demonstrated lack of adequate, less intrusive alternatives.
- Denial of a sterilization petition may be appropriate where the evidentiary record is insufficient, even if the statutory framework raises constitutional concerns.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of conservators’ request to sterilize an incompetent adult because the proof did not show necessity or lack of less restrictive alternatives, while also holding that a categorical statutory ban on sterilization for incompetent developmentally disabled persons violates constitutional privacy and leaves room for court consideration upon a stronger, individualized showing.


Conservatorship of Valerie N., 707 P.2d 760 (Cal. 1985)