Crooks, Lynn

English

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

North Dakota Law Review Volume 40 Number 2 Article 8 1964 Mental Health - Care and Support of Disordered Persons - Liability of Relatives - Equal Protection Lynn Crooks Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Crooks, Lynn (1964) "Mental Health - Care and Support of Disordered Persons - Liability of Relatives - Equal Protection," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 40 : No. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol40/iss2/8 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEWlogically have accepted the reasonable grounds test for arrest,thereby validating the revocation.' In refusing to do so, theimplied consent statute has been rendered useless as aninstrument for the promotion of highway safety, and thelegislature is left to cure what this court could have prevented.LELAND HAGENMENTAL HEALTH-CARE AND SUPPORT OF DISORDEREDPERSONS-LIABILITY OF RELATIVES-EQUAL PROTECTION-TheCalifornia Department of Mental Hygiene, pursuant tostatute,' presented a claim to intestate's estate for thesupport of intestate's mother who was an inmate in a mentalinstitution. Defendant administratrix disallowed the claimand appealed from an adverse judgement in Superior court.The Supreme Court held that a statute which imposes uponone adult, because of a family relationship, a duty to supportanother adult, who is confined in a mental institution, isarbitrary and unreasonable and thus violates the equalprotection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Departmentof Mental Hygiene v Kirchner, 36 Cal. Rpts. 488, 388 P.2d 720.At common law the state undertook the care and custodyof idiots and lunatics and of their estates. 2 There was noduty upon parents to support their adult children3 or uponchildren to support their parents.4 Nor was there a dutyupon a wife to support her husband. 5  The first statuteappearing in this area was 43 Eliz. C.2 § 7 (1601)A large majority of the states have statutes which arecomparable to the California statute involved in the principal19. Compare N.D. CENT. CODE § 29-06-15. "Arrest without a warrant.-Apeace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person. 1. For a public offense,committed or attempted in his presence " with Smith V. Hubbard, 253 Minn.215, 91 N.W.2d 756 (1958), wherein the court adopted the reasonable groundstest even though the arrest statute is the same as North Dakota's.1. CAL. WELFARE AND INST'NS. CODE ANN. § 6650 (West 1956) "The hus-band, wife, father, mother or children of a mentally ill person or inebriateshall be liable for his care, support and maintenance in a state institution of-which he is an inmate.2. 2 ODGERS, COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND, 1381 (2d Ed. 1920).3. Murrah v. Bailes, 255 Ala. 178, 50 So. 2d 735 (1951).4. Duffy v. Yordi, 149 Cal. 140, 84 Pac. 838 (1906).5. Hagert v. Hagert, 22 N.D. 290, 133 N.W 1035 (1911).[VOL. 401964] RECENT CASES 203case. 6 These statutes have withstood attacks on variousgrounds: due process, 7 class legislation," invalid taxation, 9and equal protection."0 Some states, however, have requiredthat their statutes be strictly construed." The principal caseappears to be the first under these support laws to considerwhether "equal protection" forbids the imposition of anystatutory duty upon individuals, as opposed to the generalpublic, to support their insane "relatives"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentdoes not preclude the states from creating reasonable classesfor purposes of legislation. 2  All that is required is that theclassification be not arbitrary but based on a real and sub-stantial difference having a reasonable relation to the subjectof the particular legislation.13Considering the validity of "poor laws",14  which areclosely analagous to the statutes in question,15 courts haveheld that the difference upon which the classification is basedis a natural one, embracing the strong moral obligation tocare for the unfortunate members of one's own family 16Their rationale has been that since the general purposes of"poor laws" are the relief of the poor 17 and the protection6. E.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 5121.06 (Baldwin supp. 1957) NEs. REV.STAT. § 83-352 (1943). Some states get the same effect as the California statuteby incorporating their "poor laws" into their mental health laws, e.g., Miss.CODE ANN. §§ 7357 (poor law), 6909-13 (mental health). A few states have noanalagous statutes: Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, Florida, Oklahoma, Hawaii(9).7. Beach v. Government of District of Columbia, 320 F.2d 790 (D.C. Cir.1963), cert. denied, 84 S. Ct. 351 (2) (1963).8. In Re Ideman's Commitment, 146 Ore. 13, 27 P.2d 305 (1933)9. Kough v. Hoehlec, 413 Ill. 409, 109 N.E.2d 177 (1956) held that thecharge imposed was not a tax, cf. McKenna v. Roberts County, 72 S.D. 250, 32N.W.2d 687 (1948).10. Dept. of Mental Hygiene v. McGilvey, 50 Cal. Rptr. 742, 329 P.2d 689(1958). There the question was whether it was a denial of equal protection tohold "relatives" primarily liable in cases of mental inmates and only secondarilyliable in cases involving other institutions. In Kough v. Hoehler, supra note 9, thequestion was whether the state could create liability in cases of civil commit-ments without also creating it in cases of criminal commitments.11. E.g., In Re Boles Estate, 316 Pa. 179, 173 A. 664 (1934) In Re Mangan'sWill, 83 N.Y.S.2d 393 (1948).12. Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 720 (1963).13. Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927).14. E.g., GA. CODE ANN. § 23-2302 (1935) "The father, mother, or child ofany pauper if sufficiently able, shall support such pauper."15. See notes 1, 6, 14, supra. See note 20, infra.16. People v. Hill, 163 Ill. 186, 46 N.E. 796 (1896). The statute under attackprovided, "that every poor person who shall be unable to earn a livelihood inconsequence of any bodily infirmity, idiocy, lunacy or other unavoidable cause,shall be supported by the father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, children,grandchildren, brothers or sisters of such poor person" ILL. REV. STAT. C. 107§ 1 (1895).17. E.g., State Bd. of Child Welfare v. P.G.F., 57 N.J.S. 370, 154 A.2d 764(1959).NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEWof the public purse,"8 the existence of a family relationshipprovides an adequate basis for relieving the general public ofthe duty to support these persons, and for placing the burdenupon those naturally and morally obligated to carry it.'It would appear that similar logic is applicable where"relatives" are required to support insane persons. 20The United States Supreme Court has said that thepresumption of constitutionality of a statute should be over-come only by the most explicit demonstration that theclassification is unreasonable and arbitrary;21 that the burdenshould be upon the one attacking the legislation to negativeevery conceivable basis which might support it.2North Dakota follows the majority of the states inrequiring that "relatives" of an insane person may be heldliable for the support of that person while he is an inmatein a mental institution. 2 3  Like most states, North Dakotaalso has a "poor law" 24 There appears to be no case lawhaving a significant bearing on the question under discussion. 25It would seem that this subject is one for determinationby the legislatures, not the courts. For the courts to saythat a family relationship with its natural moral obligationsdoes not provide a rational basis for classification appearsinconsistent with the prevailing view that state statutes inequal protection cases should be interpreted, insofar as18. E.g., In Re Cook, 22 Misc. 479, 198 N.Y.S.2d 582 (1960).19. See People v. Hill, supra note 16 Mallatt v. Luihn, 206 Ore. 678, 294P.2d 871 (1956)). Wells V. Wells, 227 N.C. 614, 44 S.E.2d 31 (1947) held, with-out relying on any statute, that a father is morally and legally obligated tosupport his adult son who is a pauper by reason of a mental deficiency20. Cf., Beach v. Government of District of Columbia, supra note 7, whereinthe court held valid a District of Columbia statute, D.C. CODE ANN. § 21-318(1951), which is similar to the California statute in question. The Court reliedheavily on People v. Hill, supra note 16 in holding the statute was not unreason-able. Although the attack was made on due process grounds the holding isgermane because the legislative power over the District of Columbia is analagousto the police power of the states. Lansburg v. District of Columbia, 11 App.C.C. 512 (1897). In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) it was said that inmany cases the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment has the same effectupon congressional power over the District of Columbia as the equal protectionclause of the Fourteenth Amendment has upon the states. Accord, e.g., State v.Bateman, 110 Kan. 546, 204 Pac. 682 (1922) In Re Idleman's Commitment,supra note 8 State v. Webber, 163 Ohio St. 598, 128 N.E.2d 3 (1955).21. Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940).22. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911).23. N.D. CENT. CODE § 25-09-04 (Supp. 1963) " 'responsible relative' shallmean the patient's spouse, father, mother or children." Under a prior statute,North Dakota allowed the counties to seek reimbursement from "relatives" N.D.CENT. CODE § 25-08-26 (1960).24. N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 50-01-19, 50-01-20 (1960).25. But ef. Bismarck Hospital v. Harris, 68 N.D. 374, 280 N.W 423 (1938).[VOL. 401964] RECENT CASES 205possible, to be predicated upon legitimate legislativeconsiderations.LYNN CROOKSCOURTS-OVERRULING OF PREVIOUS DECISION-E F F E C T-Plaintiff sued to cancel a conditional sales contract andpromissory note made in 1960 for the purchase of a housetrailer The contract was made in compliance with theNebraska Installment Sales Act' in effect at that time.(Before this suit was instituted the "Sales Act" was declaredunconstitutional by the Elder v Doerr2 decision.) TheNebraska Supreme Court held that the finance charges,computed in the sales contract, were in excess of the interestallowable by the Nebraska Istallment Loan Act.3 Therefore,they canceled the contract and note, ordered the defendantto return the payments which he had received under thecontract and also to deliver an unencumbered title for thetrailer to the plaintiff. Two Justices, in separate concurringopinions, said that since this was a new rule of law conflictingwith previous opinions of this court, and since a great numberof important financial transactions had been consummatedrelying on the past decisions, this decision should be appliedonly prospectively Lloyd v Gutgsell, 175 Neb. 775, 124 N.W2d 198 (1963)A judicial decision is generally thought not to make lawbut to declare law as it always existed. 4 Under this viewa decision is necessarily applied retroactively, and declaresthat prior inconsistent holdings never were the law,' Wecan readily see that this "declaratory" concept of law canproduce serious hardship when contract rights, acquired inreliance on the prior decision, are interfered with by thenew decision.61. Neb. R. B. S. § 45-301 to 312 (1960).2. 175 Neb. 483, 122 N.W.2d 528 (1963).3. Neb. R. R. S. § 45-114 to 158 (1960).4. Ross v. Board of Freeholders, 90 N.J.L. 522, 102 Atl. 397 (1917) Landersv. Tracy 171 Ky 657, 188 SW 763 (1916) Falconer v. Simmons, 51 WVa. 172,41 S.E. 193 (1902).5. Legg's Estate v. Commissioner, 114 F.2d 760 (4th Cir. 1940) CenterSchool Township v. State, 150 Ind. 168, 49 N.E. 961 (1898).6. The instant case is an example of a contract made on what was thoughtto be the law prior to the Elder v. Doerr decision, supra note 2. The seller is

Mental Health - Care and Support of Disordered Persons - Liability of Relatives - Equal Protection

https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2700&context=ndlr

Mental Health - Care and Support of Disordered Persons - Liability of Relatives - Equal Protection

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)