Road to residency at SDC hits another snag for one disabled man

The parents of "Michael K.", who have been working hard for his placement at Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC), got some welcome news recently in a favorable decision by the Court of Appeals, Sixth District. After two long years, it seemed Michael would finally be moving to SDC.
Unfortunately, no sooner had they received news of the ruling than they were informed by the San Andreas Regional Center that the center would be appealing the decision.

And so it goes. The process for families in choosing the most appropriate placement for their severely disabled relatives too often devolves into administrative and legal nightmares. As developmental centers continue to close in California and residency at the remaining centers is reduced, the stress and frustrations for families and the disabled can only be expected to continue.

PHA lends support to families and clients in matters of transfer to or from SDC in any way possible. If you have questions about a proposed transfer of a family member or placement at SDC, please contact us. You can email us at info@parenthospitalassociation.org and someone will contact you.

Below is the summary of the recent ruling by the Court of Appeals:
(MICHAEL K., on Habeas Corpus, No. H034209)

In 2005, the Legislature approved a plan to close Agnews State Hospital (Agnews). As part of the closure plan, it passed Senate Bill No. 962, which authorizes the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and the Department of Social Services (DSS) to jointly establish and administer a pilot project for licensing and regulating Adult Residential Facilities for Persons with Special Health Care Needs, known as a Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Senate Bill No. 962 Homes are residences that can accommodate four to five individuals with significant developmental disabilities in a community setting.

Michael K. is a gravely disabled adult who had resided at Agnews since 1986. Gail B. and James K. are his parents and coconservators. When the Legislature approved the plan to close Agnews, San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) determined that Michael would be placed in a Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Gail and James objected because they wished Michael to be placed in Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC). In 2008, an administrative law judge upheld the objection and ordered SARC to place Michael at SDC.

But in 2009, the public defender, purporting to act on behalf of Michael and under the authority of In re Hop (1981) 29 Cal.3d 82, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that Michael should be placed in the Senate Bill No. 962 Home. Gail and James appeared and objected. SARC appeared and asked for a court order for Michael's placement. The result was that the trial court granted the petition for Michael to be placed in the Home.

Gail and James appealed before the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, contending that the trial court failed to give deference to the administrative decision. Michael, represented by court-appointed counsel, countered that substantial evidence supported the trial court's order. SARC made no appearance on appeal. The Court agreed with Gail and James and reversed the order.

---

For more information about the provisions and guarantees for people with developmental disabilities in the State of California, familiarize yourself with the Lanterman Act.
To follow up on this particular case, reference:

MICHAEL K., on Habeas Corpus.
No. H034209.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Filed June 22, 2010.
Certified for Publication
James K., Gail B., Monica B. Wegner, Randall Ricardo, Attorney for Appellants.
Michael K., Under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jean F. Matulis, Attorneys for Respondent.