|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
|
Former Judge in Ironic Situation By Dale
Wetzei, Associated
Press
More than 20 years ago, federal Judge Bruce Van Sickle issued a landmark
decision that led to the release of hundreds of mentally retarded people
from two Now, 87 years old and stricken with Alzheimer's, the retired judge is
himself at the center of a legal fight to remove him from an institution. One of Van Sickle's sons is fighting a court ruling that has kept the
ex-judge in a nursing home for months, much of that time in a locked
Alzheimer's ward. The son, David Van Sickle, thinks his father could live
at home, with nursing care. "These are the exact same arguments that were used" in the 1980s
case over the retarded, said David Van Sickle's lawyer, Lynn Boughey.
"The irony of this is profound." Although the dispute over the judge's care began in April 2003, many of its
details have become public only recently. The North Dakota Supreme Court
heard arguments early last month. Case gets attention The case has drawn the attention of
AARP and a disability rights group called the Protection and Advocacy
Project, both of which have filed briefs arguing Van Sickle should be
allowed to live at home. The logic is similar to Van Sickle's own thinking during the 1980s, when he
ordered drastic reductions in the population of the In his 1982 ruling, Van Sickle concluded the residents were being
warehoused, without regard to their ability to take care of themselves,
and that they had a right to live in the least restrictive setting
possible. Some residents were moved to small group homes, while others were able to
live in apartments, with assistance. San Haven was closed, and the Grafton
school, now called the Landmark ruling Van Sickle spent more than 30 years
on the federal bench before retiring in 2002, the year the federal
courthouse in His ruling described institutions that were understaffed, overcrowded and
noisy. Neither met fire or safety codes. "To me, the greatest impact of this lawsuit was that it made the
clients into people," Van Sickle said in 1998. "Before, they
were almost objects. The feeling was there is nothing that can be done for
them except keep them warm until they die." The case now swirling around the judge began after he left his wife and
moved in with his longtime secretary. Court papers say he moved out
because his wife said she was going to put him in a home. Two of David Van
Sickle's siblings filed a court petition in which they said their father
was suffering from dementia and needed someone to protect his assets. In July 2003, District Judge Gail Hagerty picked a nonprofit company,
Guardian and Protective Services, to serve as Van Sickle's guardian. Van
Sickle was not allowed to get divorced without the guardian's consent or
transfer any property without Hagerty's approval. The next November, the guardian moved Van Sickle into the Alzheimer's ward
after his ex-secretary fell and broke her hip. She needed a walker to move
around, and the guardian was worried the woman was too frail and elderly
to take care of a "severely demented" Van Sickle, said the
company's attorney, LaRoy Baird. Van Sickle disliked the Alzheimer's unit so intensely that he once pulled a
fire alarm in an attempt to get out, court documents say. Later, he was
moved into a less restrictive nursing home. Avoiding institutions The judge "was adamantly
opposed to being in anything that smacked of an institution," a
friend, Betty Mills, said in court papers. "I'm sure that was in part
from the horrors that he saw during that Grafton case, but also because he
was pretty independent. Any way you cut it, an institution is an
institution." David Van Sickle's sister and two brothers are not contesting the decision
to institutionalize their father. In a brief interview, the retired judge said he was not aware he was under
guardianship and did not know the name of his guardian. "I don't
think I need a guardian. I've never had any problem," he said. "He has these periods of lucidity," said David Boeck, a
Protection and Advocacy Project attorney who has talked with him. "It
takes a little work to get information out of him, but he's still a very
bright man." And Boeck said the retired judge remarked that "he should be getting
the kind of consideration that the people in Grafton received."
|
