## Facts

- Mark C.H. was an adult with profound developmental disabilities and autism, living at a residential treatment facility since age 14.
- Mark’s adoptive mother died leaving an estate that funded trusts for Mark and his brother, including a trust for Mark valued at nearly $3 million.
- The petitioner, an attorney associated with the mother and a co-trustee of Mark’s trust, sought appointment as Mark’s guardian under SCPA Article 17-A.
- At the initial hearing, the court learned the petitioner had never visited Mark, had not contacted facility staff to assess Mark’s needs, and had not caused any trust distributions to be made for Mark’s benefit after the mother’s death.
- As a result, Mark’s care and quality of life were limited to what public benefits would cover despite substantial private resources.
- The court directed that a professional care manager be retained to evaluate Mark’s needs and oversee provision and funding of appropriate services.
- Mark did not appear in court due to his condition and professional recommendations.

## Issues

1. Whether a plenary SCPA Article 17-A guardianship of the person was appropriate given Mark’s profound disabilities.
2. Whether SCPA Article 17-A can satisfy due process where guardians of the person are not statutorily subject to periodic reporting and judicial review.
3. Whether the court may impose ongoing reporting, monitoring, and professional involvement as conditions of a 17-A guardianship to protect the ward’s liberty interests and welfare.

## Decision

- The court granted the guardianship petition under SCPA Article 17-A and appointed the petitioner guardian of Mark’s person.
- The appointment was conditioned on enhanced oversight, including periodic reporting to the court and continued involvement of the professional care manager.
- The court declined to declare Article 17-A unconstitutional on its face but stated serious constitutional concerns with indefinite, plenary personal guardianships lacking built-in review.
- The court announced a practice of requiring periodic reports and follow-up enforcement measures for 17-A personal guardians, modeled on reporting in other guardianship contexts.

## Legal Principles

- Plenary guardianship over an adult with developmental disabilities implicates significant liberty interests; due process protections must be proportionate to the scope and duration of the rights deprivation.
- Even where a statute does not expressly require periodic reporting for a guardian of the person, a court may impose reporting and monitoring conditions to ensure ongoing accountability and to reduce constitutional risk.
- A guardian of the person has an affirmative duty to advocate for appropriate services and supports, not merely to permit the ward to subsist on minimal public benefits where private resources are available.
- Courts may require use of qualified professionals (such as care managers) and may rely on their reports as part of a supervision structure to safeguard the ward’s interests.

## Conclusion

The court approved a 17-A personal guardianship for an adult with profound disabilities but required continuing reports and professional care management, reasoning that ongoing oversight is necessary to protect the ward’s due process rights and to ensure the guardian actively secures appropriate care and use of available resources.


In re Mark C.H., 28 Misc. 3d 765, 906 N.Y.S.2d 419 (Sur. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2010)