IN RE GRADY 426 A.2d 467 (1931)


FACTS: Grady was a 19 year old mentally impaired woman seriously inflicted with Down's syndrome She was unable to read words, and had moderate success in writing her name. She has some ability to count low numbers and her conversation often fails to form complete sentences She plays games, watches television and takes short walks She can fold laundry and dust, but she cannot select her own clothes but can dress herself She is able to bathe herself but needs someone to make sure the water is the right temperature She can open a can of soup but has difficulty controlling the burner temperature She is often jovial and friendly and some of her external features identify her as born with Down's syndrome, she is not afflicted with physical ailments and her life expectancy is normal She has no significant understanding of sexual awareness or marriage If she became pregnant she would be unable to make decisions about it She would not be able to care for a baby by herself Grady has been on birth control pills for the last four years. The parents want to have her sterilized The trial judge appointed a guardian ad litem An argument broke out over the standards the court should apply to authorize sterilization The judge determined that he would allow the parents to exercise substituted consent for Grady to be sterilized under the doctrine of parens patriae This involved a five part test, the subject is incapable of understanding the nature of sexual functions, reproduction, or sterilization, this incompetency is in all likelihood permanent, that the incompetent is presumably not infertile, and not incapable of procreation, that procedural safeguards have been implemented including the appointment of a guardian ad litem and a court proceeding, and that the applicants have demonstrated a genuine good faith concern for the incompetent rather than their own or the public's convenience This appeal resulted

ISSUE: Must the court determine if it is in the best interests of an incompetent to undergo sterilization?


Holding: Yes.

ANALYSIS: The judge must be the one to substitute its judgment for an incompetent person in sterilization decisions to fully protect the incompetent person's constitutional right of choice among procreation, sterilization, and contraceptives. Since there is an established record of abuse in sterilizing incompetent persons {e.g., the eugenics movement) using the substituted judgment of parents may not afford the constitutional protection that a court would provide. The sterilization decision involves factors suited to rational development injudicial proceedings so that the judge can decide what is in the incompetent person's best interest.
b) The parens patriae power of the court stems from the sovereign's inherent equitable authority to protect persons suffering from an innate legal disability, including the protection of the person's personal rights by allowing substituted consent.
c) The standard that this case calls for is one that is between a standard for compelling sterilization and one for voluntary sterilization. A standard of necessity is too strict and the best interests standard as developed by the trial court is not strict enough.