(Download) "Cahalan v. Department Mental Health" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Cahalan v. Department Mental Health
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 28, 1939
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
COX, Justice. The petitioner, as a 'friend' of Mary Margaret Wallace, 'brings this petition under Section 89A of Chapter 123 of the General Laws (Ter.Ed.) for a hearing in the Probate Court of the county where said Mary Margaret Wallace resided or was found when first committed to establish that further custody or supervision is not required for the welfare of said Mary Margaret Wallace or the public; and prays that notice issue to said parties, and that the court set a time for hearing and for such orders or decrees as to this court shall seem just in the premises.' In the petition, which is assented to by Mary Margaret Wallace, it is alleged, among other things, that on October 8, 1931, the said Wallace was committed to the custody of the department of mental diseases of the Commonwealth by a Judge of probate. Notice issued upon the petition, which, after a hearing, was dismissed. The petitioner seasonably claimed an appeal to this court. The Judge reported the material facts. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 11. He found that the said Wallace, who was born on November 8, 1910, was duly committed to the department of mental health on October 8, 1931, under the provisions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 123, §§ 66 and 66A. He also found that she was a feeble minded person within the meaning of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 123, § 66, and that the 'present restrictions are beneficial to her * * * that it might be detrimental to the best interests or welfare of the public and to Mary Wallace as an individual to discharge her as prayed for or to release her from the restrictions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 207, § 5.' The evidence is not reported, and we cannot say that the subsidiary findings that are reported require different Conclusions from those reached by the trial Judge. The petitioner contends that the limitation placed on the liberty of the said Wallace by the original order of the Probate Court is without due process of law, and that the section of the statute under which the present petition was brought does not provide for due process; and also that the trial Judge was not warranted in the Conclusions reached in that, as we understand it, the Legislature has no power to authorize the custody or supervision of feeble minded persons 'against whom the only complaint is that they are deficient in intellectual capacity.' Section 45 of said c. 123, as amended by St.1938, c. 486, § 17, provides that three of the State schools shall each maintain a school department for the instruction and education of feeble minded persons who are within the school age or who, in the judgment of the superintendent, are capable of being benefited by school instruction, and a custodial department for the care and custody of feeble minded persons beyond the school age or not capable of being benefited by school instruction. Said section 66, among other things, provides that if a Judge of probate finds that a person is a proper subject for the schools named in said section 45, he may commit him thereto, and said section 66A, among other things, provides that if 'an alleged feeble minded person' is found, upon examination by a physician qualified as provided by section 53 of said chapter 123, to be a proper subject for commitment, the Judge of probate may, upon application, commit him to 'the custody or supervision of the department' of mental health. Said section 89A, among other things, provides that any parent, guardian, relative or friend of a person committed to the custody or supervision of the department of mental 'diseases' may file a petition for a hearing in the Probate Court 'to establish that further custody or supervision is not required for the welfare of such person or the public,' and section 89B of said chapter 123, as amended by St.1938, c. 254, § 1, among other things, provides that if, at said hearing, the contention of the petitioner is sustained, the Probate Court may order the immediate discharge of such person.