## Facts

- Edith Melissa Maria Hayes was born in 1963 with a severe intellectual disability and, at age 16, functioned at roughly a 4–5-year-old level while being physically capable of conceiving.
- Her mother, Sharon Hayes, believed Edith was sexually active and likely to become pregnant, and sought a permanent method to prevent pregnancy.
- After pursuing educational and contraceptive alternatives for about a year, Sharon petitioned for authority to have Edith surgically sterilized.
- Medical testimony and a health-board report were submitted, but the record did not fully address Edith’s foreseeable capacity to decide, her parenting potential, or all less intrusive alternatives.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington superior courts have authority, absent specific statutory authorization, to entertain and decide a petition to sterilize a mentally incompetent person.
2. If so, what substantive standard and procedural safeguards must govern any order authorizing sterilization of a mentally incompetent person.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the summary-judgment dismissal.
- The Court held superior courts have jurisdiction to hear and act on sterilization petitions for mentally incompetent persons under the state constitution’s general grant of judicial power.
- The Court held that, even without controlling legislation, sterilization may be authorized only in a rare case where it is shown to be in the incompetent person’s best interest.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under newly articulated safeguards, including appointment of a disinterested guardian ad litem and development of an adequate evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- A superior court of general jurisdiction may consider a petition to authorize sterilization of a mentally incompetent person even without express statutory authorization.
- A disinterested guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent the incompetent person in sterilization proceedings.
- A court may authorize sterilization only after considering independent medical, psychological, and social evidence and the incompetent person’s views to the extent they can be ascertained.
- The proponent must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence:
  - the person is incapable of deciding about sterilization at present and in the foreseeable future;
  - contraception is needed, assessed by likelihood of sexual activity leading to pregnancy and the person’s potential as a parent;
  - no less drastic contraceptive method or less intrusive sterilization method is available; and
  - there is no likelihood of near-term scientific progress producing a reversible sterilization procedure or a new treatment for the person’s disability.
- The inquiry must focus on the incompetent individual’s best interests and bodily integrity, not eugenic or caregiver-convenience rationales.

## Conclusion

The court recognized judicial authority to hear sterilization petitions for incompetent persons but required strict procedural protections and a heightened evidentiary showing that sterilization is necessary and in the person’s best interests, reversing dismissal and remanding for a safeguarded hearing.


In re Hayes, 93 Wash. 2d 228, 608 P.2d 635 (1980)