Guardianship of R.L.A. ( 2024 )

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-946
GUARDIANSHIP OF R.L.A.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a trial, a judge of the Probate and Family Court
found the respondent, R.L.A., to be an incapacitated person, and
entered an amended decree and order pursuant to G. L. c. 190B,
§ 5-306 (b), appointing a guardian to, among other things,
monitor the administration of R.L.A.'s antipsychotic
medications. R.L.A. argues that the judge erred by authorizing
a treatment plan that allowed for the administration of
Thorazine, adopting ("wholesale") the petitioner's proposed
findings, and closing the court room during the proceedings. We
affirm.
Background. On August 27, 2021, R.L.A.'s mother
(petitioner) filed a petition for appointment of a guardian for
an incapacitated person in the Probate and Family Court. The
petitioner was appointed as temporary guardian on September 24,
2021. R.L.A.'s counsel filed an objection to the petition on
September 27, 2021.1
A guardianship trial was held on September 15 and 22, 2022.
At the time of trial, R.L.A. was forty-six years old. She had
been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms and
mania. She additionally suffered from psychotic delusions.
R.L.A. was prescribed and taking three antipsychotic
medications, one of which was Thorazine. R.L.A. did not want to
take the full dose of Thorazine because it upset her stomach.
At trial, the petitioner called one witness, Dr. Gyula
Bokor, an attending psychiatrist at the Taunton State Hospital.
Dr. Bokor explained that the low dose of Thorazine that R.L.A.
was taking was insufficient to "stabilize" her multiple
delusions and disorganized thinking.
Following the trial, the judge found that R.L.A. was an
incapacitated person. As a result, the judge entered a decree
of appointment of a guardian. The judge also adopted the
petitioner's proposed treatment plan with certain amendments.
1 On April 12, 2022, a judge of the District Court committed
the respondent to the Taunton State Hospital pursuant to G. L.
c. 123, § 16 (b). The court also authorized treatment with
antipsychotic medication pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 8 (b).
2
Discussion. 1. Substituted judgment treatment order and
"wholesale" adoption of judge's findings.2 To meet the standard
for appointment of a guardian and issuance of a substituted
treatment order, the petitioner was required to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that R.L.A. was an "incapacitated
person" within the meaning of G. L. c. 190B, § 5-101 (9), and
that, if she were not incapacitated, R.L.A. would choose to be
treated by Thorazine. See Guardianship of A.R., 99 Mass. App.
Ct. 349, 353, 358 (2021); G. L. c. 190B, §§ 1-109 and 5-306A.
We review the judge's rulings for abuse of discretion or other
error of law. See Guardianship of Linda, 401 Mass. 783, 785-786
(1988). "[A] judge's discretionary decision constitutes an
abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge made a clear
error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the
decision, such that the decision falls outside the range of
reasonable alternatives" (quotation and citation omitted). L.L.
v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
2 The decree of guardianship was due to expire on September
15, 2023. The treatment plan challenged by R.L.A. had a review
and termination date of March 21, 2023. As the decree and order
in question expired more than a year ago and no updated decrees
or orders have been presented to us, R.L.A.'s appellate
challenges, even if otherwise properly presented, are moot. See
Guardianship of Erma, 459 Mass. 801, 804 (2011). Even if the
issues were not moot, there is no merit to R.L.A.'s argument
that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she was not
competent or that if competent, she would agree to be treated
with Thorazine.
3
The evidence at trial was sufficient to establish R.L.A.'s
inability to make her own medical decisions. A patient may be
deemed "incompetent to make a medical decision" if they do "not
accept that [they] [are] mentally ill" or "cannot fairly weigh
the risks and benefits of treatment" (quotation omitted).
Guardianship of Roe, 411 Mass. 666, 669-670 (1992). At trial,
R.L.A. testified: "I don't consider myself deluded." Dr. Bokor
also testified that R.L.A. "doesn't want to take mood
stabilizers . . . because she said she doesn't need it[.]"
Based on this testimony, the judge properly concluded that
R.L.A. did not accept her diagnosis and therefore could not
determine for herself the risks and benefits of treatment.
R.L.A. argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
the judge's finding that, if not incapacitated, R.L.A. would
consent to the treatment with Thorazine. The relevant factors a
judge must consider in making a substituted judgment
determination include "(1) a person's expressed preferences; (2)
[her] religious convictions; (3) the impact on [her] family; (4)
the probability of adverse side effects from treatment; (5)
[her] prognosis with treatment; and (6) [her] prognosis without
treatment." Guardianship of A.R., 99 Mass. App. Ct. at 358.
See Guardianship of Roe, 383 Mass. 415, 444 (1981).
4
In reviewing the judge's determination that R.L.A. would,
if not incapacitated, consent to treatment by antipsychotic
medication, "we must consider whether the facts on the record
support the proposition that [R.L.A.] [her]self would have made
the decision if [s]he were competent" (quotation and citation
omitted). Guardianship of Brandon, 424 Mass. 482, 488 (1997).
We accept the judge's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous,
but we review de novo the legal conclusions drawn from those
facts. See id.The judge applied the factors set forth above in reaching
her conclusion that R.L.A., if not incapacitated, would consent
to taking the Thorazine. Dr. Bokor testified that the Thorazine
would aid R.L.A.'s disorganized thinking and delusions, but
since R.L.A. had not accepted more than a very low dose, she was
still having unusual thoughts, beliefs, and delusions.
R.L.A. complained to Dr. Bokor that Thorazine causes her to
feel sedated and have an upset stomach. Taking into
consideration R.L.A.'s concerns with Thorazine's side effects,
the judge amended the treatment plan by reducing the doctor's
requested dosage of Thorazine in half.
The judge further concluded that R.L.A.'s prognosis without
medication would be "[d]eterioration over time," whereas with
medication, R.L.A.'s delusions and mania would decrease.
5
Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion to give greater
weight to evidence of the efficacy of Thorazine in treating
R.L.A's mental health or to determine that R.L.A. -- if
competent -- would choose a medication that lessened her
symptoms of psychosis. See Guardianship of Roe, 383 Mass. at
447-448 (accepting proposition that "the greater the likelihood"
of favorable prognosis, "the more likely an individual would be
to submit to intrusive treatment").
R.L.A. next argues that the judge's adoption of the
petitioner's findings of fact shows that she "did not pay close
attention to the evidence." This assertion is belied by the
record. There was testimony about R.L.A.'s opioid addiction and
inappropriate behaviors, and a statement that R.L.A.'s family
supported her treatment. In addition, there was expert
testimony that the medications were not properly managing
R.L.A.'s symptoms.3 Further, the treatment plan was entered in
evidence. Thus, the findings, albeit proposed by the
petitioner, were supported by the evidence. Consequently, there
was no error.
3 Testimony regarding the clinician's affidavit was not
pertinent to the issue before us, nor was the affidavit
presented to us for review whether there was any error as
suggested by R.L.A.
6
2. Closing of the court room. R.L.A. contends that the
judge closed the court room for the guardianship trial, thus
violating her due process right to an open court room. As
stated infra, the issue of closing the court room is moot
because the decree and order before us have expired. There is
no claim by R.L.A. that the matter is an issue likely to repeat
itself.
However, even if her argument was properly before us, the
record provided does not make clear whether the court room was
completely "closed" for both days of trial or for what reason.
The record also does not provide evidence as to which party, if
any, requested that the court room be closed. The respondent
points to one portion of the transcript:
COUNSEL: "Your honor, may I use her name in this setting?"
THE COURT: "Yes, that's why we've closed the -- yes."
COUNSEL: "Thank you, your Honor."
While we could infer, arguendo, that the court room was at
least partially closed, it is unclear to what extent.
Additionally, R.L.A admits that there was no objection to
whatever type of closing occurred. As to the second day of
trial on September 22, 2022, simply because the matter was heard
via Zoom does not establish that the matter was closed to the
public -- others could have "attended" the proceedings by
7
signing on to the appropriate Zoom meeting. In her findings of
fact and rulings of law, the judge made no mention of closing
the court room.
"Due process is not a technical conception with a fixed
content, but varies with context, and therefore is a flexible
concept that calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands" (citation omitted). Vazquez Diaz
v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 336, 341 (2021). In the context of a
criminal case, "[a]n open court room 'enhances both the basic
fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so
essential to public confidence in the system.'" Id. at 351,
quoting Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94, 107 (2010).
However, the right to a public trial is "not absolute" (citation
omitted). Commonwealth v. Jones, 472 Mass. 707, 723 (2015).
In a criminal matter, a judge may prevent some members of
the public from entry without violating the defendant's right to
an open court. See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 466 Mass. 742,
748, cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1125 (2014). Not "every condition
placed on entry constitutes a constitutional closure of a court
room." Id. In that context, a defendant bears the burden of
proving that the public was in fact excluded from attending the
public proceeding. See Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. at 107.
8
Assuming, without deciding, that R.L.A. has the same
burden, she has failed to produce sufficient evidence that the
public was excluded from the guardianship trial. Additionally,
R.L.A. did not raise the issue of the alleged closed court room
at trial. We discern no risk, let alone a substantial risk, of
a miscarriage of justice.
Amended decree and order
affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Neyman &
D'Angelo, JJ.4),
Clerk
Entered: October 9, 2024.
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
9