# Appendix — Parham v. JR > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0830%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 442 U.S. 584 ## Text [omer | AUG 15 1977 VOLUME I-—Pages 1-351 MICHAEL RODAK, JR..CLERM APPENDIX IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1975 NO, 75-1690 T. M. “JIM” PARHAM, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, W. DOUGLAS SKELTON, Individually and as Director of the Division of Mental Health and W. T. SMITH, Individually and as Chief Medical Officer of Central State Hospital, Appellants, v. J. L. and J. R., Minors, Individually and those representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA APPEAL DOCKETED MAY 21, 1976 JURISDICTION NOTED MAY 31, 1977 ie. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Page Mesovamt Dociet MMtsteS. oc ccccccccccccvvccveses v Complaint—October 24, 1975. ........5cccceeeceee l Motion for Class Actiom......ccccccscccevcsvecess 17 Testimony of Dr. Wayne Hodges, given in hearing before Sale Wilbur D. Owens, 4 in Macon, Georgia, October 30, 1975: EE a oe 20 cc pbc ccenebess oehes ends 37 co coconnusveesosreees 48 Order Certifying Class Action, November 18, 1975... 49 hee ee lls. ee decbereress 50 AGidavit of Famet Beets... ccccccccccscccccccsess 59 Revised Statement of Facts.............6.0000e0es 62 Stipulation of Facts for the District Court Hearing. . 68 Exhibits to Stipulation of Facts................... 76 Deposition of Eli Charles Messinger................ 159 eS oho ci ices spesisiee ows 160 ee i econ epeebeert 190 2 SE Cr 216 Deposition of Dr. W. Douglas Skelton.............. 217 a nd. ess pepeenoeers 218 nd ec pesepenenseees 225 Recross-Examination...............:0sce0ee0ee8 239 sition of Dr. Donald G, Miles and Dr. va Direct Examination of Dr. Miles... 00. 947 Direct Examination of Dr. Wieland............ 258 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Direct Examination of Dr. Miles.............. 259 Cross-Examination of Dr. Miles............... 261 Redirect Examination of Dr. Miles............ 269 Exhibit 6—Admission and Evaluation from the Geographic Service Areas... . 0.656666 00000e. 270 _ = 9 of Dr. John J. Gates and Dr. W. T. PPP rey ee 276 Dienst Tineeiaatian, .o 600s cvccevccessbeeaeene 295 ee ye 320 Redirect Examination.............660000000e- 321 Recross-Eexamination.....5.cccccssecsscvcvcese 321 Exhibit 4—Example of Admission Program and Responsibility-Action Format.............+. 322 Exhibit 11—List of Therapeutic Activities omital by Central 3 Gesseia Westenal “ Exhibit 12—Minutes of the Utilization Review Committee and Criteria for Admission to Regional Mental Hospital..............60055 345 VOLUME Il Deposition of Lawson H. Bowling.............++++ 352 Disest Thasnninatiem. oo: ccccccsosvesvecverennn 353 Crosn-Tineninatiee. oo000ccsccevevccescessenens 366 Exhibit 2—Policy 2, Part 1, Screening Procedure —Child and Youth Services...........66055. 384 Deposition of Gladelle Whitaker..............5+5. 390 Disost Thenmsinatie. » occ cccccecsccsecencenen 391 Crosp-Timneninatiee. oo000cccccccevecvecvcvecess 418 Redirect Examination............6+000e0eeee: 436 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Deposition of Dr. Eugene C. Jarrett, ITT........... 438 EE 439 NE 454 Deposition of Dr. Wladyslaw P. Mazur............ 475 nt ee cceess 476 ce veccvcces 488 Exhibit 3—West Central Georgia Regional Children and Adolescents Unit Policies and ee, doce cccwecbccccecce 513 Deposition of Dr. James B. Craig.................. 519 ec cices 520 Cross pation OS EE 531 Exhibit 2—Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah Children and Adolescents Unit Screening Policy of Children and Adolescents ccc cance cecssececvccccecce 548 Deposition of Dr. Everett C. Kuglar............... 551 ee 552 EEE 569 en — Sy aetna Deposition of Anne Etheridge..................... 631 Nn ccccececes 632 ccc ceccwccccccccuces 680 Recross-Examination......................... 682 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Deposition of Dr. Arthur Falek..........-.---++-+- 686 Direct Examination............----+-+eeeeee 687 Cross-Examination.............00+:++eeeeeeees 702 VOLUME Ill Deposition of Dr. John Paton Filley...........---- 718 Direct Examination.............---e-eeeeeeee 719 Cross-Examination............00+0-seeeeeeeee 757 Deposition of Dr. Luciano L’Abate..........-.---- 795 Direct Examination..............--scccceeees 796 Crogs-Examination.............seseeeeeeeeees 812 Appendix “B” to Defendants’ Supplemental Brief in the District Court. ..........cccccccceccesccees 822 Attachment “A” to Post-Discovery Brief of Plaintiffs .888 Attachment “B” to Post-Discovery Memorandum of et Rs 5 cov Kacv's duancevodpoeees venpeses 893 Report of the Study Commission on Mental Health Services for Children and Youth..............+-: 899 Affidavit of Judge Romae Powell...........---++-- 918 Affidavit of Judge Dennis Jones. ........---+-+++++- 927 Opinion of the District Court. ......---.---++++++: 934 Judgment of the District Court.........--.-++++++: 935 Order of the District Court Denying the Defendants’ Motion For a Stay.........--- eee ee eee eee eeeee 937 Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the WE ED... cccccccobesedsayyertepesoyaee 947 Order of the Supreme Court noting probable jurisdiction .......--.--- see eee cere e crete neees 949 iv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION J. L. and J. R., Minors, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. “i T. M. Pay Py 0 Individually and as mmiussioner of the Department of Human Resources: W. DOUGLAS SKELTON, Individually and as Director of the Division of Mental Health; W. T. SMITH, Individually and as Chief Medical Officer of Central State Hospital, Defendants. RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES 1975 October 24, Coraplaint filed. October 24, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, for Class — and for the Convening of a Three-Judge Court October 24, ORDER, settin i . . g hearing for Thursday, October 30, 1975 at 5:00 P.M., in Macon, Georgia. . October 30, Hearing held before Judge Wilbur D. Owens, pursuant to the order issued October 24. November 7, ORDER of Chief Judge John R. Brown, constituting Three-Judge Court, filed. Vv November 17, ORDER governing production of certain confidential documents of Central Georgia Regional Hospital, the Baldwin County Department of Family and Children Services, the Stephens County Depart- ment of Family and Children and the Department of Human Resources, filed. November 18, ORDER confirming that the action was to be maintained as a class action filed. November 19, Defenses and answer for all Defendants filed. November 19, Affidavit of Janet Scott filed. November 19, Revised Statement of Facts filed. November 19, Stipulation of Facts for the district court hearing filed. November 19, Hearing held by the district court. November 21, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry and Inspection filed. November 21, ORDER of the district court granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry and Inspection filed. December 2, Deposition of Eli Charles Messinger filed. December 12, Depositions of Anne Etheridge and Nancy Autry filed. December 12, Deposition of Dr. W. Douglas Skelton filed. December 12, Deposition of Dr. James B. Craig filed. December 15, Deposition of Arthur Falek filed. December 19, Deposition of Daniel Offer filed. December 19, Deposition of Dr. John Paton Filley filed. vi December 19, Deposition of Walter Gove filed. December 19, Deposition of Gladelle Whitaker filed. December 19, Deposition of Martha Ann Taylor filed. December 19, Deposition of Vivian Schoonmaker filed. December 19, ORDER of the district court directing that all persons examining the record in this matter not disclose the names of the children involved except by Order of the Court, filed. December 22, Received Supplemental Brief on Behalf of the Defendants together with Appendixes A, B, and C to Defendants’ Supplemental Brief. December 22, Stipulated Submission of Exhibits to Depo- sitions filed. December 22, Post-Discovery Memorandum of Plaintiffs received. December 23, Deposition of Dr. Eugene C. Jarrett, III filed. December 23, Deposition of Dr. Luciano L’ Abate filed. December 23, Deposition of Wladyslaw P. Mazur filed. December 23, Deposition of Dr. Loren R. Mosher filed. December 23, Depositions of Dr. Donald G. Miles and Dr. William Wieland filed. December 23, Deposition of Hester Dixon filed. December 23, Deposition of Dr. Everett C. Kuglar filed. December 23, Depositions of Dr. John J. GatesandDr. W. T. Smith filed. December 23, Deposition of Dr. Lawson H. Bowling filed. vii 1976 February 26, Filed Opinion and Order of the district court granting permanent injunction, ruling unconsti- tutional Georgia Law permitting parents to place children in mental institutions without a hearing and ordering State officials to provide non-hospital facilities for children under 18 years of age. March 8, ORDER of Chief Judge John R. Brown recon- stituting the Three-Judge District Court filed. March 10, Defendants’ Motion to Stay filed. March 10, Affidavits of Romae T. Powell, W. Douglas Skelton and Dennis F. Jones in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay filed. March 11, Hearing held by district court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay. March 11, Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) entered. March 17, ORDER of district court denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal filed. March 24, Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from the Order of the district court filed. March 24, Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the Order of the district court filed. March 24, Certified Copy of the Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States and to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, together with certified copy of Docket Sheets forwarded to the Supreme Court of the United States. viii — Pi (1) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION [1] [Filed at 10:50 A.M., Oct. 24, 1975, Dorothy F. Motes, Deputy Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia] J. L. and J.R., minors individually and on i) behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CIVIL _ JAMES PARHAM, individually and as _ ION Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources; + DOUGLAS SKELTON, individually and as _ | * Director of the Division of Mental Health; W. T. SMITH, individually and as Chief Medical Officer of Central State Hospital, Defendants. } COMPLAINT Three-Judge Court (Civil Rights Class Action) I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damges, for violations of their civil rights resulting from the operation of Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). This statutory scheme permits parents and guardians of per- 1 (1) : sons younger than 18 years of age to cause the involuntary commitment of those persons to state mental health facilities under the guise of a “voluntary” admission statute. The statutory scheme conflicts with the due pro- cess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it allows for the involuntary commitment of persons younger than 18 years of age: (1) without a hearing and other procedural safeguards and (2) without initial and periodic consideration of placement in the least drastic environment necessary for treatment. This cause of action, [2] arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Since these statutes are of state-wide application, a three- judge court is required. II. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by: a. 28 U.S.C. §1343(3), relating to original jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. $1983. b. 28 U.S.C. §2201, §2202, relating to declaratory relief. c. 28 U.S.C. §2281, §2284, relating to injunctive relief and three-judge courts. III. THREE-JUDGE COURT 3. This is a proper case for determination by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2281 and 2284 since plain- tiffs seek an injunction to restrain defendant state officers 3 (3) from the enforcement, execution and operation of a state statute [Georgia Code §88-503.1(a)] of state-wide appli- cability on the ground that the statutory scheme is con- trary to the United States Constitution. IV. PLAINTIFFS 4. Plaintiff J. L. is a citizen of Georgia, age 12, who is being held against his will by the defendants or under their direction having been committed by his adoptive mother and stepfather pursuant to the challenged statute, Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). 5. Plaintiff J. L. was committed without notice, hearing, right to counsel or order of a court. (3) 6. Plaintiff J. R. is a citizen of Georgia, age 12, who is being held against his will by the defendants or under their direction having been committed by the Stephens County Department of Family and Children Services pursuant to the challenged statute, Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). 7. Plaintiff J. R. was committed without notice, hearing, right to counsel or order of a court. V. DEFENDANTS 8 Defendant JAMES PARHAM is the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources for the State of [3] 4 Code Georgia. Pursuant to Acts 1972, pp. 1015, 1046 (Ga. §40-35101), defendant Parham has the responsibility to execute and administer all functions of the Department of Hv~an Resources including the Division of Mental Health. 9. Defendant DOUGLAS SKELTON is the Director of the Division of Mental Health and has direct administra- tive responsibility for controlling all mental hospitals under the Division of Mental Health. 10. Defendant W. T. SMITH is the Chief Medical Officer of Central State Hospital and has direct administrative responsibility for the admission of persons to Central State Hospital. VI. CLASS ACTION ll. The named plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), 23(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all others similarly situated. (4) 12. : The members of the class of plaintiffs similarly situated are all persons younger than eighteen years of age who have been, are, or may be committed by their parents or legal guardians to a state mental health facility under the direction and control of defendants Parham and Skelton pursuant to Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). 13. uirements of Rule 23 are met in that: the class is tt that joinder of all members is impractical 5 (5) (and the knowledge of the total membership of the class is indeterminate); there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class; the represen- tative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and the parties opposing the class have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declara- tory relief with respect to the class as a whole. VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF J. L. 14, Plaintiff J. L. was committed to Central State Hospital on May 18, 1970, pursuant to Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). He was 7 years of age at the time of his commitment, and of normal intelligence. 15. He was committed by his adoptive mother and step- father, although he did not wish to enter the hospital then and does not wish to stay there now. (5) 16. At the time of his commitment, J. L. was not mentally ill and did not present an imminent likelihood of serious harm to himself or others. 17. At the time of his commitment, J. L. was not afforded meaningful notice, a hearing, and other procedural safe- guards to determine whether (1) he was mentally ill and presented an imminent likelihood of serious harm to him- Se ee (5) 6 self or others, and (2) if hospitalization was the least drastic environment necessary for his treatment. 18. J. L. was confined in Central State Hospital from May 18, 1970, through September 18, 1972, when he was re- leased on furlough. Due to existing family tension, neither his adoptive mother nor his stepfather were able to meet J. L.’s needs and he was forced to return to the institution within ten days. He has been continuously confined since that date. 19. In April, 1974, J. L.’s adoptive parents voluntarily relinquished their parental rights to Central State Hos- pital. J. L. has not seen his adoptive parents since that time. 20. As a result of his inappropriate and unconstitutional institutionalization, J. L. has been and is being subjected to a regimented and standardized institutional routine which stifles his individual development and his oppor- tunity to assume personal responsibility. He is forced to live with patients whose sometimes bizarre and frighten- ing behaviors cannot be avoided. He has been subjected to a program of chemotherapy which has had and will continue to have long term detrimental physical and psychological effects on his development. His IQ has consistently {6] declined. He has developed allergies and respiratory problems and manifests deep feelings of in- security, in uacy, and hopelessness. He is stigmatized by the label of “mental patient’”’ which has had profound reprecussions on his self-image and self-confidence and which will continue to influence, overtly or subtlely, the manner in which he will be treated the rest of his life. 7 [6] 21. In the opinion of experienced and competent psychi- atric personnel, J L. is suffering from institutionalization and — immediate placement in a less drastic environ- ment. 22. J. L, has not been afforded periodic consideration for placement in the least drastic environment. 23. J. L. has not been placed in the least drastic environ- ment. 24 Although the defendants have known or should have known of J. L.'s inappropriate placement, J. L. remains incarcerated against his will at Central State Hospital. PLAINTIFF J. R. 25 Plaintiff J. R. was committed to Central State Hospital on June 24, 1970, pursuant to Georgia Code §88-503.1(a). He was 7 years of age at that time and was of average or slightly below average intelligence. 26. After six placements in foster homes which, in each case, J. R. lost his place to a more favored child, he was committed by his legal guardian, the Stephens County Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). DFCS had assumed custody on October 27, 1966, after the Juvenile Court of Stephens County had declared him to be a neglected child and removed him from his natural parents. J. R. has had no contact with either of his natural parents since his first foster placement. 8 (7) 27. At the time of his commitment, J. R. did not wish to enter the hospital and does not wish to stay there now. 28. At the time of his commitment, J. R. was not mentally ill and did not present an imminent likelihood of serious harm to himself or others. At the time of his commitment, J. R. was not afforded meaningful notice, a hearing, and other procedural safe- guards to determine (1) whether he was mentally ill and presented an imminent likelihood of serious harm to him- self or others, and (2) if hospitalization was the least drastic environment necessary for his treatment. 30. In 1973, experienced and competent psychiatric per- sonnel concluded that J. R. no longer needed to be con- fined at Central State Hospital and recommended that he be placed in a less drastic environment. 31. J. R. has been continuously confined to Central State Hospital from June 24, 1970, through the date of the filing of this Complaint. 32. J. R. is now 12 years old. He has had no contact outside the hospital for the last five years except for two to four temporary holiday visits to foster homes. 33. As a result of his inappropriate and unconstitutional institutionalization, J. R. has been and is being subjected LT y) [8] to a regimented and standardized institutional routine which stifles his individual development and his oppor- tunity to assume personal [8] responsibility. He is forced to live with patients whose sometimes bizarre and frighten- ing behaviors cannot be avoided. More specifically as a result of the stress of his inappropriate and unconstitu- tional institutionalization, J. R. has been subjected to a program of chemotherapy which has had and will con- tinue to have long term detrimental physical and psycho- logical effects on his development. His IQ has declined. He is stigmatized by the label of ‘mental patient” which has had profound repercussions on his self-image and self- confidence and which will continue to influence, overtly or subtlely, the manner in which he will be treated the rest of his life. 34. In the opinion of experienced and competent psychiatric personnel, J. R. is suffering from institutionalization and needs immediate placement in a less drastic environment. 35. J. R. has not been afforded periodic consideration for placement in the least drastic environment. 36. J. R. has not been placed in the least drastic environ- ment. 37. Although the defendants have known or should have known of J. R.’s inappropriate placement, J. R. remains incarcerated against his will at Central State Hospital. [8] 10 VIII. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 38. Georgia Code §88-503.1(a) provides as follows: The superintendent of any facility may receive for observation and diagnosis any individual 18 years of age, or older, making application therefor, any individ- ual under 18 years of age for whom such application is made by his parent or guardian and any person legally adjudged to be incompetent [9] for whom such application is made by his guardian. If found to show evidence of mental illness and to be suitable for treatment at such facility and such person may be detained by such facility for such period and under such conditions as may be authorized by law. 39. Pursuant to Georgia Code §88-503.1(a), a parent or guardian may ‘‘voluntarily” commit a juvenile to a state mental health facility regardless of a juvenile’s opposition to admission. There is no provision in the Code for a hear- ing prior to admission to determine the appropriateness or necessity of such action. Nor is there anyone to protect the juvenile’s interests in the admissions procedure. In effect, a juvenile is “powerless” to influence a decision which may result in his indefinite confinement in an institution. 40. There is no statute, regulation, or policy which pro- vides for periodic review and, where appropriate, place- ment in a less drastic environment, of juveniles committed pursuant to Geo gia Code Annotated §88-503.1(a). 11 [10] IX. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 41. By operation of the statutory scheme, plaintiffs and their class have been, are, and will be involuntarily com- mitted to and incarcerated in state mental health facili- ties without being afforded a meaningful and complete opportunity to be heard. Consequently, defendants have deprived them of liberty without procedural due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 42. By incarcerating | plaintiffs and their class without initial and periodic consideration of placement in the least drastic environment, defendants have denied them liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion. [10] » a SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 43. As a result of the deprivation of their constitutional rights, named plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $10,000.00 each. XI. INJURY 44. As a result of their unconstitutional commitments, the plaintiffs and their class have suffered severe and irre- [10] 12 parable injury, and have no adequate remedy at law to redress the stated constitutional deprivations and wrongs. Plaintiffs and the class they represent will continue to suffer irreparable harm from the constitutional depriva- tions and wrongs set forth herein unless and until the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein is granted by this Court. XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of their class, pray that this Court: 1. Enter an order convening a three-judge court, pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. §§2282 and 2284 to determine the controversy. 2. Enter an order certifying this action as a class action consisting of all persons younger than 18 years of age admitted by their parents or guardians to state mental health facilities pursuant to Ga. Code §88-503.1(a) as provided by Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Issue a temporary restraining order stating that the defendants shall place plaintiffs J. L. and J. R. in the less drastic environment suitable to their individual needs. (11) 4. Enter an order that the trial of this action on the First Claim for Relief shall be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 [12] 5. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction en- joining the defendants from: a. enforcing and executing Georgia Code §88-503.1(a) as it allows the commitment of persons younger than 18 years of age admitted by their parents or guardians without due process safeguards provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con- stitution b. accepting into a state mental health facility any person whose admittance is sought by his parent or guardian on a voluntary basis unless such person has been afforded prior to commitment the right to: 1. meaningful notice; 2. a hearing; 3. counsel and, if indigent, appointment of counsel; 4. present evidence and testimony on their own behalf; 5. subpoena witnesses and documents; 6. confront and cross-examine witnesses against them and those who wish them to enter a facility; 7. independent expert examination and assistance; 8. have the defendants show by clear and convinc- ing evidence that hospitalization is the least drastic environment necessary for treatment, safety and care; [12] 9. be involuntarily hospitalized only upon a de- cision that they are mentally ill and present an imminent likelihood of serious harm to themselves or others, being based on clear and convincing evidence; 10. be involuntarily hospitalized only upon de- cision of a disinterested and impartial decision- maker; : 4 : Se TN [12] 14 11. appeal and review, including provision for assistance of counsel and record and transcript eae cost if appellant is unable to pay the cost thereof; 12. other procedural safeguards. c. failing to (1) immediately review the needs of each member of the class who is presently residing in the defentant’s mental health facilities to determine their need for continued hospitalization and whether hospitalization is the least drastic environment for their treatment and (2) immediately place each member of the class in accordance with the findings of the review. d. failing to (1) review the needs of each member of the class on a periodic basis and (2) immediately place each member of the class in accordance with the findings of each periodic review. 6. Enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that Georgia Code §88-503.1(a) is invalid, void and of no effect in that the statute violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion. 7. Award damages to plaintiffs J. L. and J. R. in the amount of $10,000.00 each for the unconstitutional depri- vation of their civil rights. [13] 8. Allow the plaintiffs their costs herein and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 15 [13] 9. Grant such additional and alternative relief as may be deemed by this Court appropriate, just, proper and equitable. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Davin GorREN DAVID GOREN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFFS GERALD R. TARUTIS STEVEN GRANBERG 653 Second Street 5 (912) 744-6261 Macon, Georgia 31201 Of Counsel: | NANCY LINDBLOOM JOHN CROMARTIE, JR. Suite 909 - 15 Peachtree Street, N.E. (404) 656-6021 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 JOSEPH J. LEVIN PAMELA 8S. HOROWITZ SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1001 S. Hull (205) 264-0286 Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 (14) GEORGIA, BIBB COUNTY Personally appeared before the undersigned attesting officer, authorized to administer oaths under the laws of the State of Georgia, came affiant, who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the facts and allegations set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of affiant’s knowledge, information and belief. /s/ Davip GorEN DAVID GOREN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFFS Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of October, 1975. /s/ Mixissa H. WALKER Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large My Commission Expires: August 24, 1979 17 (1) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) [Filed at 10:50 A. M., Oct. 24, 1975, Dorothy F. Motes, Deputy Clerk, U. 8. District Court, Middle District of Georgia] MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION, CONVENING THREE-JUDGE COURT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs J. L. and J. R. move the Court to grant the following relief: 1. Issue an order pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure determining that this action may properly proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) on the grounds that: the class, consist- ing of all persons younger than 18 years of age admitted to the defendants’ mental health facilities upon the appli- cation of their parents or guardians, pursuant to Georgia Code §88-503.1(a), is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class; the repre- sentative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and the parties opposing the class has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 2. Request the Chief Judge of the Circuit to convene a statutory court of three judges for the purpose of hear- [1] 18 ing and determining this application for a preliminary and permanent injunction and this cause, in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 United States Code §§2281 and 2284 which require the [2] convening of such a court when an interlocutory and permanent injunction are sought to restrain a state officer from the enforcement of a state-wide statute that is alleged to conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The preliminary and permanent injunctions are sought to restrain the defen- dants, who are state officers, their successors ir office, agents and employees, and all other persons in active concert and participation with them, from failing to provide to the plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated a meaningful hearing on their need for institutionalization and initial and periodic consideration for placement in the least drastic environment. 3. Issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining the defendants, their successors in office, agents and em- ployees, and all other persons in active concert and par- ticipation with them from failing, pending a final decision on the meri, to give the plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated a meaningful hearing on their need for institutionalization and initial and periodic consideration for placement in the least drastic environment. Plaintiffs seek this relief for themselves and all others similarly situated on the grounds that: a. They and all others similarly situated are each suf- fering, or are imminently threatened with suffering, ir- reparable damage in that they have been or will be committed to the defendants’ mental health facilities for an indefinite period without any meaningful procedural 19 (2) and substantive safeguards to prevent inappropriate in- stitutionalization; b. The issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause undue inconvenience or loss to the defendants but will prevent irreparable damage to the plaintiff and others similarly situated ; c. The statute [Georgia Code §§88-503.1(a)] that [3] deprives plaintiffs and all others similarly situated of their liberty violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con- stitution of the United States. d. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, as set forth more fully in the verified complaint. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Davin GorEN DAVID GOREN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFFS GERALD R. TARUTIS STEVEN GRANBERG 653 Second Street (912) 744-6261 Macon, Georgia 31201 Of Counsel: | NANCY LINDBLOOM JOHN CROMARTIE, JR. Suite 909 15 Peachtree Street, N.E. (404) 656-602! Atlanta, Georgia 30303 JOSEPH J. LEVIN PAMELA 8. HOROWITZ 1001 8. Hull (205) 264-0286 Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (1) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) TESTIMONY OF DR. WAYNE HODGES Given in Hearing before Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., in Macon, Georgia, on October 30, 1975 DR. WAYNE HODGES Witness called by the Plaintiffs, first being duly sworn, testified on DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOREN: Q Mr. Hodges, please state your name and address. A Wayne Hodges, 548 Comanche Drive, Macon, Georgia. Q Could you briefly describe for us your vocational work and training especially in regard to children? A Ihavea B.S. degree in psychology from Troy State (2) University, and I have an academic degree, M.A. in general theoretical psychology from East Carolina Uni- versity. I have a Psy. D., a Doctor of Psychology, from Baylor University in clinical child psychology concentra- tion. Have been at Central State Hospital since ‘68. Primarily my experience there has been with children. Also much of my practical training period and my formal academic training was with children. 21 3] Q Have you published any articles? A_ I have, about ten or twelve. Q Have you published any articles in relation to children? A Yes, I have. I think at last count twelve profes- sional papers. I suppose about half of those must be directly related to treatment of emotional disorders in children. Q Have you had any internship training? A Yes, with Joseph (inaudible) University Medical School for a year, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and there, by request, my concentration training was with children. Q Is that a special internship program? A Yes. It is an international program accepting certain quotas from the States and certain quotas from foreign countries who have practitioners interested in furthering their education in behavior therapy under Dr. Borne (??) who is known in our profession as the father of behavior therapy. (3) Q Doctor, could you please describe for us in general the effects of immediate and long term of inappropriate hospitalization of children. A Well, the immediate effects seem to have to do with depersonalization and desocialization of persons thrown into these types of settings. I suppose I could narrow it down to generalities somewhat when I say these types of settings to pertain mostly to the State Hospital type of setting. Immediately there is the depersonalization that takes place, and some sort of conditioned emotional (3) 22 responses that frequently occur from frustrations they are undergoing. There seems to be a period of time in which individuals may be exposed to inappropriate learning ex- periences so that by modeling he may adopt many of the other patients inappropriate behavior to his own repe- toire, primarily due to a lack of alternatives given to him in his development to cope with stress. He readily takes on those behavior patterns that he sees as being a viable alternative for himself. Reaching a little further in terms of scope into the future, we find two sub-groups of patients that usually evolve due to institutionalization. I base my opinion at this time primarily on the work of Gogden and if I am not mistaken a fellow named Base has also done some work in therapy, but it’s been a long time since college exams, so the names may not be exact. But he has found that the two groups are those [4] patients who tend to become colonized and then those patients who tend to organize to try to beat the system. The colonization of patients seems to be the one resulting in the most detri- ment to the patient, since they essentially become a very dependent species, unable to take care of themselves independently in the regular mainstream of life. Q Do these effects become more pronounced as the state in the hospital progresses? A If you mean more pronounced in terms of their prognosis, yes. Although of course the height or intensity of the maladaptive behavior of course may not go beyond that after a certain number of years. But in terms of the increase of the—in terms of the prognosis, continuance of hospitalization will make the prognosis progressively poor because tendencies grow with time and with practice and a very strong habit that’s maladaptive will be much more difficult to treat, and will have far-reaching effects ee ee 23 [5] in terms of any intervention that you might try with the patient. I might add that all of these factors allow for the original behavior of the person and the original disorder they first presented themself with to sort of multiply and intertwine so that as previously I have stated at one time, they became somewhat panicled with the original problem and solving the thing becomes rather difficult. Q Are these effects more exaggerated when dealing with [5] children as opposed to adults? A In terms of prognosis I would say certainly, be- cause you see with adults much of our treatment has to do with the breaking down of inappropriate behavior, and then attempting to instill an alternative. With children, due to age, and due to familial reasons due to environmental reasons, they never actually develop the behavior and appropriate responses in the first place, so that they are highly susceptible to implementation of much behavior that otherwise they would not have, since they are in a learning process, so that treatment then becomes not only one of breaking down—it also becomes one of instilling and giving alternatives, so that it is a two-fold process with children. Then if appropriate treatment isn’t given, by the time that child spends a great deal of time in such an environment in an institu- tion, we may find that the process of breaking down is very difficult because he has had time to model from a myriad of behaviors, and we may find the process of giving alternatives to be very difficult because he has ingrained a great many mutually exclusive inappropriate behaviors that work against any therapeutic behaviors that we try. Q Would you describe your present job and your duties and responsibilities in that job? [5] 24 A Theoretically I am clinical director of psychology. I am also—in terms of duties—this has to do with monitor- ing [6] and carrying on all functions of professional psychology. Q Is that at Central State Hospital? A Yes. There is a more recent name for it—Central Georgia Regional Mental Health Center. Then I have teamly functions, which—on the girls ward—which essentially a synthesized function of all ward activities and serve as consultant to attendant staff and so forth in dealing with patients and to assist the ward physician with planning and disposition of patients, and as con- ceived is mainly an active day to day on the ward monitor- ing and intimate involvement with all patient activities, intake, treatment, disposition, and so forth. In terms of job title, I suppose this is it. I am also involved in various other activities. Q Doctor, are you familiar with a study done in 1973 on Central State Hospital’s facilities for children and adolescents? A Cursorily. Q What I would like to do, Doctor, is to retrieve from that study their recommendations, conclusions, and see if you agree with it in regards to the facilities at Central State Hospital. Recommendation A—there are not ade- quate facilities to serve the present need at Central State, therefore it is essential that the new regional hospitals begin child services as soon as possible, and children at Central State from geographical areas having hospital [7]services be transferred. A Yes, I am familiar with that. =a 25 [8] Q Do you agree with the statement? A Is that the No. A? Yes, I agree. Q The second statement— THE COURT: Mr. Goren, wouldn’t it be appro- priate to first, for the Court’s information, remembering that the Court known nothing about the facilities, just to give us a basic description of the physical facilities over there for children? You may not want to do it with him, but that’s something the Court needs to know, to be able to understand anything about the problem. MR. GOREN: O.K. What we will do, Your Honor, is ask Dr. Hodges to explain his agreement with these conclusions in regard to the specific facilities at Central State. THE COURT: All right. Just bear that in mind. Q Mr. Goren: Dr. Hodges, the second of the con- clusionary recommendations is that plans should begin now for closing the 80-bed adolescent unit, as a physical facility completely unacceptable for therapeutic rehabili- tation for young children. MS. KIRKLEY: Your Honor, I object to his [8janswer that until he has laid the foundation showing that he knows that facility— THE COURT: Doctor, are you familiar with the 80-bed facility in question? THE WITNESS: Arc you talking about the C & A unit? MR. GOREN: Yes sir, the adolescent unit. THE WITNESS: Yes sir. THE COURT: All right. Let him describe the unit. (8) 26 Q Mr. Goren: Dr. Hodges, explain why you are familiar with that unit and your description of that unit, please. A Well, administratively I am not familiar with the ins and outs of it. But in terms of the physical plan and at least the low level of administration, I am familiar with it. We have part of the Boland Building which is one of the older buildings, for the adolescents, and I don’t know how many beds we actually have in those. The childrens building is a new building and very nice in terms of physical accomodations as it now stands and as it now functions, and that is primarily for the treat- ment of children. The adolescents and children are separated. THE COURT: What’s the difference in an adoles- cent and a child as you use that term? [9] THE WITNESS: Your Honor, could you be a little more specific? THECOURT: You differentiate between children and adolescents. THE WITNESS: In the sense that I use it? THE COURT: Yessir. THE WITNESS: I think over 12 years—I think I should answer that not from a professional viewpoint but from the viewpoint of how the C & A unit is run. 13 and up are considered adolescents and are placed in the adolescent ward, and those below that age, children. THE COURT: Doctor, go back and give me a basic description of the buildings where these children are housed—are they housed in one room, or in separate rooms, or how? al 27 [10] THE WITNESS: O.K. In the adolescent unit the male and female wards are separated by a lobby. Within the ward itself there is separation by a metal gate into two different areas. There is common bedroom facilities for the in patients. The beds are in sort of, I suppose, a Belaire arrangement in terms of having no partitions between them—sort of open. THE COURT: Are they cots, or double deckers? THE WITNESS: They are Army bunk type beds [10]|—not bunk beds one on top of the other, but they are individual beds, maybe a little bit less than twin size— they remind me of Army barracks type of bed. Then out- side of the bed area there is a sort of day room area which essentially is probably a 30 x 10 feet area in size, in which there is TV and couches along the wall for them to col- lectively spend their day if they choose to watch TV and to interact in that way. It’s a flat roof structure, the walls are fairly well painted right now, have various posters on them for cheering up the guys, and there are—there is one doctor’s office there on the ward which is toward the far end of the ward, near the outside lobby. The secretary is away from that office so that work can be done, due to “the noise from TV and activities of the patients if they are near the office area. It’s tile floor. In the center of this complex I have just described is a nurses’ station which attending ward personnel house their administrative functions. Q Mr. Goren: Doctor, could you now explain why these facilities lead you to agree with the conclusion which I read earlier? MS. KIRKLEY: Excuse me. I believe he just described the adolescent unit. THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 28 [11] MS. KIRKLEY: And did not describe the chil- dren’s unit. THE COURT: Describe that also. THE WITNESS: The children’s building is sepa- rated also. The entire building is split in a sense down the middle, and separates male from female sides. The interior there reminds me very much of a dormitory life sort of setting. There is a sort of bright atmosphere as compared to the adolescent ward—lots of bulletin boards. It is a new building and it’s well kept and there’s lots of activity going on there professionally, activity sucn as music therapy, and the kids can wander in there occasionally which I have seen them do. The sleeping area seems to be recognized as dormitory like. Again they have more privacy in that the sleeping area if I recall correctly is divided off into separate rooms. Q Mr. Goren: Doctor, have you had an opportunity to examine and review the case records of plaintiff J. R.? A Yes. First of all, what unit is J. R. in? Adolescent 7. That was the first unit you described? Yes. Q And based on your examination and your review of [12] J. R.’s case history, have you been able to form an opinion as to his need for further hospitalization? A Yes. I would like to state as I have previously that I am not familiar with the record in every exacting detail. - O fF 29 [13] I have reviewed the record and followed it in sort of a chronological order and was able to form a diagnostic impression, an impression of what disposition would be most appropriate. But I don’t want to purvey the idea that I have an infallibility, an infallible intimacy with his record. Would you please repeat the question? Q Have you also personally examined J. R.? A Yes. Well, I saw him for about 15 to 20 minutes interview. Q Based on that interview and perusal of the record which you just described, were you able to form an opinion as to his need for further hospitalization? A Yes. Also I talked with the team leader from his ward area who has a very close working knowledge of the boy. This constitutes partially the basis for my opinion. I feel like that J. R. is just a mildly retarded individual who needs structure and supervision but could function much better in a setting characterized by a heck of a lot less structure, and that would afford him more appropriate opportunities for him to develop his self-supporting skills as he grows older. [13] Q Would continued hospitalization of J. R. be harm- ful to him? A I believe that it would, for the reasons that I stated earlier. A boy this age is easily led and with his limitation in ability he would be as highly susceptible to suggestion, who also—many kids who have a history like this also in a sense are affection hungry so that they will do things for mere peer attention and pure acceptance. So that what I am saying overall is that it would be fairly easy for them to incorporate a great many inappropriate behavior to his [13] 30 own repetoire, that would lead us to characterizing him as being pretty maladjusted, plus, as I mentioned earlier, the habit strength of these individuals increase with each day, just making it more difficult to ever break them down and instill new behaviors. The third consideration is that this type of child is an excellent type of candidate for coloniza- tion, as I earlier explained as being taken from Gogden’s research. Q Colonization being what? A Colonization being development of very dependent type personality, one that is ‘“‘a good patient” and looks to ward life structure and guidance for his existence from minute to minute and cannot function independently from the ward structure, and in patient hospital structure. They are institutionalized is also another term frequently used to describe this type of patient. [14] Q You are saying that each day he is there he is sus- ceptible to becoming more institutionalized and therefore will have lesser of a chance of succeeding on the outside? A Yes. Q Do you have a recommendation for what alter- native placement would be appropriate for J. R.? A Well, this is a very difficult question, because it has to do with the alternatives available. So that while one could certainly say the present setting is not the optimal one and in many respects could be detrimental, it’s not easy to put your finger on what would be most appro- priate. I am also impaired somewhat by my lack of knowledge in toto of what Georgia offers. I will try to answer your question after all this qualification. A spe- 31 [15] cialized foster home setting could possibly do it. A smaller group home setting, such as a Boys Ranch where he would get structure and some objectives from day to day, some- thing to do with guys, maybe work pretty hard during the week, with lots of interaction and stimulation, maybe fishing on the weekend, a camping trip, or something like this—a much less structured and more healthy optimistic type thing. Q Now back to Plaintiff J. L.— THE COURT: Before you leave J. R., what do you mean by slight mental retardation? THE WITNESS: A mild retardation. This is [15] characterized by a deficiency in scope and skills and intelligence level is somewhere around 65 to 75. These kind of people usually are—they are not stupid, but they are rather slow. They make good solid citizens. They work hard, see after their own business, like to go to town on Saturday afternoon to a movie, but they never pursue academic skills. They just are people who can function, not very brightly, but nevertheless they are not severely impaired. THE COURT: Let me ask you—from your review of his record, do you perceive that had he existed in a normal parental situation that he could have survived in the public school system of this State? If he had caring parents who sent him to school like everybody else does? THE WITNESS: I believe not without special resources—resource teachers or special education classes. Q Mr. Goren: One more thing about J. R. This function that you just described for people who are the same level of retardation that J. R. is presently at, would his continued hospitalization harm his chances of being [15] 32 able to fulfill his potentials for somebody of his intellectual capacity? A Yes, for that reason, that is the intelligence reason. [16] And of course for other reasons whethera person is mildly impaired or not, their behavior is determined not only by an inherent or low I.Q. level but by the oppor- tunities afforded them. We have indication that not only is it a matter of having opportunities afforded, but if they do not occur at a certain time and in a certain way then the person may be permanently impaired from incor- porating this into day to day functions. In other words, if a person doesn’t learn how to learn sometimes, they can’t even learn later even though they normally would—so that you may have instilled sometimes a situation where- by a person’s ability to further incorporate is harmed. THE COURT: Doctor, what do you perceive other than the slight mental retardation to be the cause for this child being kept in this facility, Central State Hospital, during the time he has been there? THE WITNESS: I think primarily a lack of alternatives for more appropriate treatment. I think that is the primary reason. THE COURT: Are you saying that from your review of the record that you gather that the State just had no place else to put this child? THE WITNESS: I wouldn’t say that they had no other place, but apparently it seemed to the people in- volved in the case at the time that this was the most [17] suitable alternative that they had to offer. Q Mr. Goren: Doctor, have you also had an oppor- tunity to examine J. L. and review his record? 33 [18] A Yes. Q And what ward is he on? A He is on the male side of the children’s unit. Q Have you had an opportunity to form an opinion as to his need for further hospitalization? A Yes. Q What is that opinion? A I believe more suitable arrangements could be made, possibly specialized foster care situation. It must be understood that frequent professional treatment should be carried out by the prospective foster parents for a more optimistic future there would need to be counseling continued. Q What would be the effect on J. L. if he were required to remain hospitalized? A It’s my opinion that with this particular boy he seems to have a little get up and go about him. I don’t think that he would become colonized. I think he would become one who would attempt to beat the system and would become very hostile, aggressive, and begin to show his displeasure and aggravation by a large number of responses that could make him be sort of obnoxious. Particularly a kid with his intelligence level and knows what’s going on, there will [18] be an increased tolerance threshold so that you begin to see additional emotional responses occur that add to the problem, the additional emotional responses being simply a generalized emotion— a sort of frustration situation, and they may become sort of patterned or attached to various functions socially and so forth so that they come out and become visibly as part of the psychological problem. [18] 34 MR. GOREN: I have no further questions. THE COURT: What do you perceive to be the reason for J. L.’s being admitted and being kept in this facility? THE WITNESS: I guess it would be kind of like what we had on the other—lack of alternatives. What do you do, if we put ourselves in the place of the individuals who are dealing with the child at the time. The familial situation was unstable, there was a traumatic point and the child had reacted to this with a good deal of frustra- tion, irritability, hyperactivity, the school couldn’t handle him, the family couldn’t handle him, and no one wanted him. THE COURT: He is just seven? THE WITNESS: Yes. It’s not unusua! to see hyveractive reaction in children exposed to a traumatic situation. THE COURT: What—I know what I think that [19] term means, but how do you use that term? THE WITNESS: Well, the child is usually one who has a very short attention span, won’t pay much attention to anything for an appreciable period of time. He is eternally from one thing to another. He is easily upset and aggravated. You can’t get him to settle down, he’s hard-headed, won’t listen to you. THE COURT: Sounds like my four-year old. THE WITNESS: I could put that into other language, but I feel like that describes it as much as any- thing else. THE COURT: Do you consider that to be an abnormal trait of children at 7 years of age? 35 [20] THE WITNESS: To the degree it was being shown, it was abnormal when you compare it to normaley. When you go to talking about abnormality, there are five different ways pathologists characterize this term. In the sense that you just mentioned it, you are speaking in reference to a known. That is, how does this child’s be- havior compare to an average. If we look at it in that sense, I think possibly we would have to say that his behavior exceeded the intensity and amplitude of those kinds of behaviors seen in normal people. If you look at it from the sense that is the behavior abnormal given the circumstances in which it evolved, I [20] would say no, it is quite normal behavior for child of that age to display given the situation. THE COURT: And what do you perceive to be the mental level of J. L.? THE WITNESS: How smart he is, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: He is average intelligence. MR. GOREN: Just a few more questions, Doctor. Q Mr. Goren: In children who are admitted to the hospital, do you often find that there is stress within their family situation? A Would you remind repeating that? Q Children like J. L. who are admitted to the hospital, do you often find in the history of children like this that they come from a stressful family situation? A Yes. Very much. Q Does that often lead to their hospitalization? [20] 36 A Yes. I think that implied in this kind of question you are asking is something that has been battered about for years in our field, and that is—well, I will just give a conclusion. It’s now inconceivable that we could try to determine the abnormality in the absence of considering the situation in which it occurred. You say is there a stressful family situation associated—well, there must be [21] some situation associated because little has been done in the science of psychology sans disorders directly connected to some physiological or organic basis. Then we must always, at least from my viewpoint, consider that a disorder can develop in the sense of some learning process by some pathological lesion forming, by a constitution which it itself can also be involved. And the third way is by learning, which is by far the biggest reason for our behavior. Q To treat children who come from that kind of family situation, is it necessary also to work with the family? A Yes. Q And what would be the effect if there wasn’t any family to work with? A The question you always ask in the treatment of a child in your consideration of when he should go back, when should he be entered back into the community, is how many of the relevant precipitating elements were altered by the treatment. If none have been altered, and if the behavior had its beginning in this situation, and you haven’t altered any of the elements, you almost have to predict that the same thing is going to occur. THE COURT: Doctor, in what proximity are the physical facilities that you described to the adult facilities? Physical proximity. 37 [23] THE WITNESS: Judge, I would say a half to [22] three-quarters of a mile. THECOURT: From the nearest facility? THE WITNESS: I believe that’s right. THE COURT: What opportunity is there for the children to get outside the building you described and onto the grounds? THE WITNESS: They do have activity therapy and they are given opportunity to go out on a daily basis. This is determined partly by the particular problem of the individual and the amount of ward help available for monitoring the children. But at least as it is set up all of them have opportunity to go out if their behavior and the circumstances let them go out. THE COURT: Is there any type schooling? THE WITNESS: Yes sir. There is a special edu- eation school that is directly connected with the hospital and is actually in the same building with the adolescent unit. THE COURT: Aill right. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LACKEY: Q Doctor, without being unduly repetitious, I would like to begin again with the physical facilities, if I might. It is true that J. L. is located in the children’s facility at this time, isn’t it? [23] A Sir? Q It is true that J. L. is located in the children’s facility at this time, isn’t he? [23] 38 A Yes, that’s right. Q And that J. R. is located in the adolescent facility? A Yes, that’s right. Q Let’s talk about the children’s facility. You used the term dormitory, school dormitory. A Yes. Is it departmentalized? Yes, it is. And you say there’s always activity going on there? Yes, I think that’s fair to say. Q Is there a professional staff available there in that facility? A Yes, there is. Q What type of staff—just very briefly. A We have attendants, nursing personnel, activity therapists are available from time to time, there is a psychology staff there for contact with the patients. - O F&F Q In other words there is a full range of psychiatric services there? A Yes. Q From psychiatrists on down to attendants? A Yes. If you would like to use that ladder. [24] Q Just going through the range, from people who are there the most to people who are there the least. There are play areas for the children at this facility, aren’t there? A Play areas? 39 [25] Q Play areas—entertainment areas. A Yes. Q There are recreation facilities available to them. Swing sets and that sort of thing? A Yes sir, they’ve even got an old hook and ladder from an antiquated fire engine. Q Now in the adolescent unit—by the way, do you know how many children are in the children’s unit today? A I am not able to answer that. It’s under 20 and maybe over 10. Q Let me break that down. Under 20—does that include male and female? A I believe that’s right. Q And they are separated by sex? A Yes. Q So that means that following normal percentages there are probably 10 male children and 10 female chil- dren? A Yes. Q So the males interact in a group of 10 and the females in a group of 10? [25] A Yes. Like I say, I can’t be specific. Q And they have a school right there in the building? A From the children’s building the school is just a short walk. Yes. Q There is a school available. A Yes. [25] 40 Q Are they required to attend and perform to their abilities? A Yes. Q Is this a highly specialized school? A It is a special education school and offers a curric- ulum to my knowledge fairly representative of special education schools. I don’t know really how to respond to that. Q Are these special education type schools available everywhere in the State, to your knowledge? A To my knowledge they are. Q The way you answered that is that that you don’t know, or— A That probably would be the best answer. My wife is a teacher, we’ve been all over, I guess. Most schools have special education, and I think this is sort of set up by legislation and governed by the educational system. Q You spoke of models when you were discussing some of the problems of children. Do the male staff mem- bers act as models for the children under normal cireum- stances? [26] A If you mean by models in the form of therapeutic sense I would say no. Of course any live person is a model whether it is by intent or whether it be inadvertent. Q And one more question about the children—are they fed regularly three meals a day, this sort of thing? A To my knowledge they are. They all seem to look healthy. pl UR " 41 [27] Q_ Let’s talk about the adolescents. The physical lay- out as I understood it, in this case there are different wings for the males and females? A Yes. Q And as I understood you, each wing is again divided in at least two sections? A Yes. Q How many children would you presently say are in the adolescent building? A Male and female? Q Yes. A I would say close to 40—give or take 2 or 3. Q And again using the normal percentages I would say there are approximately 20 males and 20 females? A Yes. Q And the wards are divided—I assume they are separated into even smaller groups again? A Depending on how things are going. They may be and [27] may not be, but they have that potential. Q They could be divided—assuming they were divided equally, there would be 10 in one group and 10 in the other? | A Yes. Q Do they have recreational facilities available in the adolescent ward? I know you described the place, but I am more interested in the outdoor type— A Yes, there is—the building is constructed so that in the physical layout of it, the building is such that there is a [27] 42 quadrangle enclosed, in the building itself. They get out in there. I must say the recreational facilities as I described for the children I think are probably more adequate than they are for the teenagers, because here you have a different set of needs for recreation, and I must say that the physical facilities for their recreation is not that good. We do have activity therapy and we have recently added occupational therapy. Q Do you have therapists who deal with music? A Yes. Q What other kind of therapists do you have avail- able? A There is recreational therapists. Q Are all these therapists— A And there is occupational therapy, which is servic- ing a very limited number of the patients. Q There are for these adolescents various types of [28] therapy available and for the children also? A Yes. There is. There is some amount—but I don’t feel competent saying at this time that it is adequate. Q The point I am getting to, Doctor, and that I am trying to make to the Court is that we are not keeping them caged over at the Central State Hospital, each in his own little place, with no stimulants or anything else, are we? We are providing some sort of services? A Yes. bia Q There is professional help provided? A We make every effort for that to be so. In some cases that is not possible. 43 [29] Q Now let’s talk about your diagnosis—let’s go back— you gave us quite an impressive list of credentials. When did you finish your formal training in this area? A August 16, this year. Q August 16 of this year? Is that when you rejoined the hospital on a full time basis? A Yes. Q So you just in essence finished your formal educa- tion? A Yes. Q And embarked on your professional career. Is that the case? A Yes. [29] Q And did I understand you to say that you had— MR. LACKEY: Your Honor, is it appropriate for me to use the first names of these children? We’ve been doing that all day. THE COURT: I think so. Yes. Q Mr. Lackey: It’s my understanding from our con- versation earlier in which you testified today that you had seen Jimmy for approximately 20 minutes. A Yes. Q And for Joey you had seen him approximately 20 minutes in an interview situation and on other occasions in a perfunctory manner. Is that correct? A That’s right. Q So in essence, I take it,—and you also read the files on the two boys? A Yes. [29] 44 Q Now isn’t it true then that basically what you told us all today is based on not your study of these two cases but on your general theory of how children should be handled—children with emotional problems should be handled? A Nosir, I don’t feel that is is. I also would like to add to the two aspects that formed the basis, and that is my third point that I talked with a member of the psychology staff in the children’s unit about J. L. to add to my read- ings. I also talked with the team leader on adolescent 7 about [30] J. R. to supplement my reading, so that not a great deal existed on the theoretical level. I do have to say I based it on the basis of my professional opinion. Q In that case what you must be saying is that there are children there that you think should remain in that institutionalized situation? A Yes sir. Q Are vou familiar with the social background of these two children from your review of the record? A Not in great detail. I am in terms of the sort of un- stableness of the situation—this type of thing, and I know I would be very vulnerable to questions or specifics in that area. Q I take it then you are not aware that J. R. has been sent to a foster care type situation at least nine times or ten times since he was originally brought to Central State Hospital? A Iwas not aware of that. Q Let’s talk about your diagnosis again—you diag- nosed one of the children as being mildly retarded. Doesn’t the case record indicate that this child also had emotional 45 [31] problems, throws temper tantrums, head-banging, bed- wetting? A Yes. Q Aren’t those all symptoms of some sort of emotional [31] disorder? A Yes, they are. Q Something besides mental retardation? A Yes. THE COURT: Head-banging and bed-wetting are symptoms of what? THE WITNESS: As the lawyer said, of further emotional disorder, if it’s intense enough, and I assume that he mentioned that in that context— MR. LACKEY: I was reviewing the record where it was reported that he threw temper tantrums, head- banging, bed-wetting, this sort of thing. THE WITNESS: And your question was are these sometimes symptoms of other emotional disorders. Was that your question? MR. LACKEY: Yes. A The Witness: Yes, these are sometimes symptoms of other emotional disorders, particularly with emphasis on the intensity. : THE COURT: They are also symptoms of a normal child, aren’t they? THE WITNESS: That’s true. THE COURT: I have known of many children that do the same thing—normal children that live up and down the street. : : ‘ : 46 [32] MR. LACKEY: In his medical records these were given as part of the reason at the time of his admission. THE COURT: That’s what’s disturbing to the Court. MR. LACKEY: Well, the Doctor has said this demonstrates some emotional disorder. THE WITNESS: I said sometimes. Let me talk for a minute if I may, about the problems of diagnoses. THE COURT: Let’s don’t do that. Go ahead. Q Mr. Lackey: You mentioned you thought the idea for these people would be specialized foster care? Is that correct? A For J. R. I think I said either that or a group home setting with sort of a more optimistic atmosphere, such as a Boys Ranch. Q Just assume for the moment that a Boys Ranch is available—I don’t know that it is—what is different—as I understand it, a Boys Ranch type situation is again a group setting of a number of persons who are in a ranch type setting. They are still in a group, and I assume that the group would be no smaller than the ten we are talking about here. What makes that situation any more different so as to warrant setting up a special system? [33] A Ihave to speak from my experience and my context of what is a Boys Ranch, at least from my understanding, it’s based on a home type existence in which the kids are not depersonalized in that they can have their own per- sonal items, they have their own beds in a rather private area. They can more or less go and come at will, but they have specific tasks. 47 [34] Q I take it you mean then out of the professional setting—by home setting you mean a typical foster care setting with just ordinary people running the situation for the child as opposed to a psychologist or social worker or something like that? A Yes. Q You are not talking about the professionals that we can go out and hire on the street? A No. Q You are talking about somebody who really cares about kids and wants to do something for them? A Yes. Q Do you know where the is a list—where there is a group of people like that that we can draw? A No. Q Isn’t it the same way with specialized foster homes? Isn’t the main ingredient the people—the person, the foster parents? [34] A Yes. And there are hardly any homes available, particularly for this age group. Q And that isn’t something money can cure, is it? A Well, I think it probably is, because it seems that the level of values is very very intimately associated with social economic power. Q You mean if the Judge raises the anti high enough we will find some of this parential love out there? A I think it would flourish. Q Is that what you want for the children? That kind of parental love? [34] 48 THE COURT: Well, that—let’s get off that. MR. LACKEY: No further questions, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOREN: Q Would the behavior of these children deteriorate if they remain hospitalized? THE COURT: I think he has aiready answered that question. In his opinion continued hospitalization would be detrimental. MR. GOREN: That’s all. ee ee 49 [1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) [1] [Filed at 9:30 A. M., Nov.18, 1975, Dorothy F. Motes, Deputy Clerk, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia] ORDER This confirms the court’s verbal order of October 30, 1975, pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure, that this action is to be maintained as a class action. The class consists of all persons younger than 18 years of age now or hereafter received by any defendant for observation and diagnois and/or detained for care and treatment at any ‘“‘facility’’ within the State of Geor- gia pursuant to 1969 Georgia Laws page 505, 517, in- formally codified as 1933 Georgia Code Annotated § 88-503.1. The representatives of the class are “J.L.” and “J.R.” by their guardian ad litem David Goren, Esquire. The present basis for this action so proceeding is Rule 23(b)(2). This order is conditional and may be altered or amended before a decision on the merits. SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of November, 1975. /s/ WitBuR D. Owens, Jr. WiLpur D. Owens, JR. United States District Judge 50 (1) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) [1] DEFENSES AND ANSWER COME NOW all defendants and make the following defenses and answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint. DEFENSES OF LAW 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which injunc- tive cr declaratory relief may be granted. 2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which monetary relief may be granted. [2] ANSWER Responding to the specific allegations of the Complaint, the defendant show the following: 1 Defendants admit that plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for violation of their civil rights resulting from the operation of Ga. Code § 88-503.1. Defendants also admit that the cause of action arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and that since an injunction of a statewide statute is requested that a three judge court is required. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph one (1) of the Complaint. AD mb tec ctl ARE ec lw A ABO gE AIT ME 0 Bt es ae ae 51 [3] 2. The allegations of paragraph two (2) of the Complaint are admitted. 3. The allegations of paragraph three (3) of the Complaint are admitted. 4, Defendants admit that plaintiff J.L. is a citizen of Georgia age 12 who was admitted to the hospital upon application by his adoptive mother and stepfather pur- suant to the challenged statute, Ga. Code § 88-503.1, and also admits that plaintiff J.L. would testify that he is being held against his will. 5. The allegations of paragraph five (5) of the Complaint are admitted and defendants show by way of further answer that there was not an adversarial proceeding prior to the plaintiff’s J.L. admission because he was voluntarily admitted pursuant to [3] the challenged statute, Ga. Code § 88-503.1, and also admits that plaintiff J.L. would testify that he is being held against his will. 6. Defendants admit that plaintiff J.R. is a citizen of Georgia, age 12, who was committed by the Stephens County Department of Family and Children Services pursuant to Ga. Code § 88-503.1 and defendants further admit that plaintiff J.R. would testify that he is being held against his will. 7. The allegations of paragraph seven (7) of the Complaint are admitted and defendants show by way of further an- [3] 52 swer that there was not an adversarial proceeding prior to the plaintiff J. R.’s admission because he was volun- tarily admitted pursuant to the request of his adoptive mother and after examination by the admitting physician at Central State Hospital (now Central Georgia Regional Hospital). 8. The allegations of paragraph eight (8) of the Complaint are admitted. 9. The allegations of paragraph nine (9) of the Complaint are admitted. 10. The allegations of paragraph ten (10) of the Complaint are admitted. 11. The allegations of paragraph eleven (11) of the Com- plaint are admitted. [4] 12. The allegations of paragraph twelve (12) of the Com- plaint are admitted. 13. The allegations of paragraph thirteen (13) of the Com- plaint are admitted. 14. The allegations of paragraph fourteen (14) of the Com- plaint are admitted and defendants show by way of further answer that plaintiff was diagnosed by the ad- mitting physician as a hyperkinetic child and that he had unsocialized aggressive reaction of childhood. ante ee Pe DERE. Oe RE Oe Pee 16 RO 53 [5] 15. Defendants admit that plaintiff J.L. was admitted by adoptive mother and stepfather. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph fifteen (15) of the Complaini for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 16. The allegations of paragraph sixteen (16) of the Com- plaint are denied. 17. The allegations of paragraph seventeen (17) of the Com- plaint are admitted except defendants show that adminis- trative procedures were used to determine the appvopriate- ness of hospitalization and plaintiff was voluntarily com- mitted to the hospital and therefore [5] was not the subject of an adversarial proceeding. 18. Defendants admit that J.I.. was confined in Central State Hospital from May 18, 1970 through September 18, 1972 when he was released on furlough and after that furlough he has been continually confined since that day. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph eighteen (18) of the Complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 19. The allegations of paragraph nineteen (19) of the Com- plaint are admitted accept that Defendants show by way of further answer that a relinquishment to Central State Hospital is not a legally binding document. i) 54 20. Defendants deny that J.L. has been inappropriately or unconstitutionally institutionalized. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph twenty (20) of the Complaint for want of in- formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 21. Defendants admit it would be appropriate for plaintiff J.L. to attempt to live in a less drastic environment, in a specialized foster home for example but show by way of further answer that at the present time they know of no specific foster home available for plaintiff J.L. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph twenty-one (21) of the Complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 22. The allegations of paragraph twenty-two (22) of the Complaint are denied. (6) 23. The allegations of paragraph twenty-three (23) of the Complaint are denied and defendants show by way of further answer that plaintiff J.L. is presently in the least drastic environment which is available for his care and treatment. 24. Defendants admit that J.L. remained confined at Cen- tral State Hospital apparently against his will but they deny the remaining allegations of paragraph twenty-four (24) of the Complaint. Pa PS ROMS, BERK ty tial Clann Ree dd ee halt 6 ee oe ES Oo, a's y Baad sabes 2Oebte te Ri a 55 (7] 25. The allegations of paragraph twenty-five (25) of the Complaint are admitted except that defendants would show that plaintiff J.R. was, at the time of his admission, mildly retarded or had a borderline normal level of in- telligence. 26. The allegations of paragraph twenty-six (26) of the Complaint are admitted except that defendants can neither admit nor deny that plaintiff J.R. lost his place in six foster homes to a more favored child for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation. 27. Defendants admit that plaintiff J.R. would testify that he does not wish to stay at Central Georgia Regional Hospital. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph twenty-seven (27) of the Complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 28. The allegations of paragraph twenty-eight (28) of the Complain+ are denied. [7] 29. The allegations of paragraph twenty-nine (29) of the Complaint are admitted except defendants show that ad- ministrative procedures were used to determine the ap- propriateness of hospitalization and that plaintiff J.R. was voluntarily admitted to the hospital and therefore was not given an adversarial hearing. [7] 56 30. Defendants admit that it would be appropriate to try to place J.R. in a specialized foster home and that none has been available since that time but defendants can neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of para- graph thirty (30) of the Complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 31. The allegations of paragraph thirty-one (31) of the Complaint are admitted. 32. The allegations of paragraph thirty-two (32) of the Complaint are admitted. 33. Defendants deny that J.R. has been inappropriately or unconstitutionally institutionalized. Defendants can nei- ther admit nor deny the remaining allegations of para- graph thirty-three (33) of the Complaint for want of in- formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 34. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph thirty-four (34) of the Complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. 35. The allegations of paragraph thirty-five (35) of the Complaint are denied. (8] 36. The allegations of paragraph thirty-six (36) of the Complaint are denied and defendants show by way of _ nine 57 [8] further answer that plaintiff J.R. has been placed in the least drastic environment available for his care and treatment. 37. Defendants admit that J.R. remains confined at Cen- tral Georgia Regional Hospital and that he would testify that he is confined against his will. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph thirty-seven (37) of the Complaint. 38. The allegations of paragraph thirty-eight (38) of the Complaint are admitted. 39. Defendants admit that pursuant to Ga. Code § 88-503.1(a) a parent or guardian may voluntarily com- mit a child to a state mental health facility regardless of a child’s opposition to admission and that there is no provision in the code for a hearing prior to a voluntary admission to determine the appropriateness or necessities of such action. Defendants deny the remaining allega- tions of paragraph thirty-nine (39) of the Complaint and show by way of further answer that the admission pro- cedures protect the child’s interest and that in this manner the child is able to influence the decision which results in his admission to an institution. 40. The allegations of paragraph forty (40) of the Com- plaint are denied. 41. The allegations of paragraph forty-one (41) of the Complaint are denied. 58 [8] 42. The allegations of paragraph forth-two ‘42) of the Complaint are denied. [9] 43. The allegations of varagraph forth-three (43) of the Complaint are denied. Defendants jointly demand a jury trial on all issues of disputed fact with regard to plaintiffs’ second claim for relief for ten thousand dollars ($10,000) damages for each of the named plaintiffs. 44. The allegations of paragraph forty-four (44) of the Complaint are denied. ArTHuR K. BoLTon Attorney General Rosert 8. Srusss, II Chief Deputy Attorney General /s/ Don A. LANGHAM Don A. LANGHAM Deputy Attorney General /s/ Timoruy J. SWEENEY Timotuy J. SWEENEY Senior Assistant Attorney General /s/ Dorotuy Y. KIRKLEY Dorotuy Y. KIRKLEY Assistant Attorney General Please serve: Dorothy Y. Kirkley 132 State Judicial Bldg. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Phone: 656-3346 pe ew — 59 (2] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) [1] AFFIDAVIT OF JANET SCOTT I, Janet Scott do hereby swear or affirm the following to be true. I presently reside at 240 Richards Drive, Milledgeville; my mailing address is P.O. Box 1076, Milledgeville, Georgia. I have a Masters Degree in Social Work and am pres- ently employed by Central State Hospital, Milledgeville, Georgia, in the position of Social Worker ITI. From August 1968 through March 1971 I was the Social Worker in the Children’s Building, part of the C & A Unit, of Central State Hospital. I first came into contact with Joey Lister in March 1970, as an out-patient. It was my understanding that his step-father had contacted Col. Schuyler, who in turn contacted Dr. Portuondo, Unit Director, C & A Unit regarding out-patient services. On March 17, 1970 I had my first meeting with Joey and his parents on out-patient status. I met with Joey and his family approximately once per week, for about two months, while he was on out- patient status. These meetings consisted of individual and parent therapy. I was the primary therapist in this case on out-[2]patient and in-patient status. Through these meetings I became increasingly aware of the problems that Joey and his parents had. I became [2] 60 aware that Joey was being held responsible for the verbal- ized problems within the home but, that these problems seemed primarily to belong to the mother and step-father. It was my opinion that Joey was being scape-goated by his parents for their difficulties. My impression was that Joey was neither psychotic nor hyperkinetic. I concluded that it was not really in Joey’s best interest to be hospital- ized but, that placement in another home environment might have best met his needs. In a different home en- vironment, one of love and acceptance, I doubt that Joey would have experienced the problems attributed to him, and with which he had to deal. The circumstances involved in Joey’s adoption, at 8 hours old, I believe contributed to the situation that evolved in the eventual hospitalization of him. The adoptive mother and her first husband, Dr. Joe Lister, were invited to dinner at a home of a physician friend, with whom Dr. Lister arranged the adoption of this out- of-wedlock boy without his wife’s awareness; the physician friend felt the marriage to be rather shaky and decided that, in order to survive, it needed a child. The eventual divorce of the Lister’s, and the adoptive mother’s assuming total responsibility for the care and supervision of Joey, plus the unusual circumstances in- volved in the initial adoption (for which Mrs. Lister was prepared neither emotionally nor for the necessary items required in the care of an infant) I believe contributed to the basic negative feelings of this mother for this child, and contributed to the rejection of Joey exemplified by his admission to C.S.H. The mother’s remarriage also contributed to her need to reject Joey and “start over again”; I did not feel that Mr. Shermer ever really wanted Joey in his new marriage. ee i ne. © re 61 [3] From the time of Joey’s admission and until I left the C & A Unit, in March 1971, nothing occurred during his course of hospitalization that led me to alter my impres- sion that hospitalization was not in his best interest. During this period of time I felt that an adoptive home, rather than a foster home, would best meet his needs. Some permanency was needed that adoption could pro- vide. At the time of the decision to admit Joey to the C & A Unit, made by Dr. Portuondo, Unit Director, I was not consulted as to my recommendation regarding his need for hospitalization. My contact with Jimmy Ramey, prior to my departure from the C & A Unit in March 1971, was quite minimal. I was aware that the reason for his admission, as shared with me, was that Stephens County DF & CS had run out of foster homes and felt they had no other alternative than hospitalization. At this time my reaction was that such a reason for hospitalization was indeed unusual if not inappropriate. 18 Nov. 1975 /s/ JANET Scotr Date JANET ScoTr /s/ CaroLyn R. BLoopwortH Notary Public, Baldwin County, Ga. My Commission Expires: 1-6-78. (SEAL) 62 (1) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION (Caption omitted in printing) REVISED STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff J.L. was adopted when he was 8 hours old. Following the adoption, the adoptive parents experienced marital difficulties, stress, and eventually, the marriage failed. In June, 1969, when J.L. was 5 years old, J.L.’s adop- tive mother remarried. Family tension continued, J.L. had problems in school [See Exhibit #2-B-1; Summary Progress Note: 6/75], and in March, 1970, J.L.’s adoptive mother and stepfather contacted Central State Hospital regarding out-patient services. After less than 8 weeks of out-patient services which consisted of weekly sessions of both individual therapy for J.L. and parent therapy [See P-1; Affidavit of Janet Scott, Social Worker], J.L. was “voluntarily” admitted by his adoptive mother and step- father to Central State Hospital on May 18, 1970. The diagnosis given at the time of admission was ‘“‘Hyperkinetic reaction of childhood; predisposition: poor home environment.”’ [See Exhibit #1-I]. However, admis- sion notes written by Dr. Zapatera (now Gutierrez) state: “T wonder if he was hyperkinetic . . . he does not look like that now?” [See also Exhibit #1-G-1 and 2]. For J.L., at 6 years of age, the familial situation was unstable; there was a traumatic point and he related to this with a good deal of frustration, irritability, hyper- activity, the school couldn’t handle him, the family ee ee NN ew Bille es! ot. a ay fe tase 4 > Separated [ ) How long If the patient has been married Lefore, give the follownng information fo each marnage Spouse's Name “Address “Year married Year separated ordivorced Reason If the petient has children, @ve the indicated imiowmation for each Name Z With whom will patient jive when he leaves hospia! ? woe AN. STEP-FATHER®®® PREMIER MOBILE HOME PARK-EATONTON ROAD, | ILLEDGEVILLE, GA. Name and eddress What is the petiont’s principal occupation? N/A Did the patient work regularly in the last year? \ erage Monthly Income EXHIBIT #1-F-. 2 ther persons or the patient himself, are working and have contributed to the petient's support, give follow ..g information _KEMME TH LEESHERMER STEP-FATHEX ANNOUNCE R(RAD1 9) » * Tae CARRIE R, SHERMER MOTHER COUNTY HOSPITAL ; eR Sa race e Relationship Principal Occupation Avg Monthly income es the petient receive income from any of these sources (Underline) octal Security, Welfare, | Veterans’ Administration, Railroad Retirement? Amount NONE if patient is 65 yeers of age or older, is he/she signed up for Medicare? _ sient taciealsiinincaitiliaiasadinaheaaaitlies Part A (Hospital) a Part B (Medical) sattalipces NONE Age Left School? © _ Reason? UNCONTROLABLE _ — If the patient served in the Armed Services, give the following information: Service Year entered Year left Type ‘Discharge Service No. Service Occupation “Claim No. Is the oatient active in church? _ Denomination? SAPTIST If the patient was ever arrested, give the indicated information Dete Plece Reason ~ Disposition Give the following information regarding the patient's parents K.L. SHERMER 27 RADIO ANNOUNCER HiGH SCHOOL Father (STEP FATHER) Age Occupation Education CARRIE A. SHERMER 32 X-RAY TECHNICIAN HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE&x-A Mother Age Occupation Education JOE M. LISTER 35 OENTIST UNKNOWN Step-Parent Age Occupetion Education If parent(s) is deceased, give the age at death and cause If the patient's parents ever obtained » divorce, give age of patient at the time 3 YEARS Give the following information regarding siblings, (includes those who may have died or who may be half-siblings). Neme Age Address Occupation (if deceased, give cause) EXHIBIT #1-F-2 patient has beer mentally il! before give (he following information wox. Dates of lilness Drugs? ____ ——— = «+ ee =~ as thepatient ever used alcohol excessively? =. —..... ____ If eny relative of the patient has been mentally 1!!, addicted to «cohol or drugs or been in a mental hospital. give the following information ec Se Name Relationship _ Nature of Iliness ‘Hospital, if hospitalized T —-— | a e- - —- — a Briefly, what about the patient's behavior makes you fee! he needs hospitalization? EXTREME LY AGERE SSIve. HAS NO REGARD FOR AUTHORITY. _ PRESENT FROM EARLY AGE Ord this behavior appear suddenly or gradually? Check any of the following which describes the patient's behavior Feit someone or something had special contro! over him, —_ Hed feers of being harmed, — . . Heard imaginary voices, _______ Smelled peculiar odors, _..__. Sinw imaginary * persons or things, /—_. Thought they were someone else, .____ Experienced loss of memory, scsaeieaiiendinan Seemed to lose interest in people and things , _.X. _ Neglected appearance; Spoke angrily to others, Xo. Was physically violent to self or others, _.% Depressed, __% If the patient has been suicidal, homocidal, violent, or destructive, describe 20 a Describe any serious illnesses, injuries or operations as indicated Illness. injury or operation i Dee Physician or Hospital where treated and address If any close relative of the patient or the patient himself has had any of the following illnesses, give the information requested below: Heart Disease, Asthma, Ulcers, Diabetes, Tuberculosis, Fpilepsy or Fits, Syphilis, Cancer, Huntington's Chores. Wilson's Disease, Pick’s Disease Name Relationship __ ~ Describe Iiness Has the patient ever had convulsions, fits, blackouts, « ¢, slepsy? susntiiesneeumaan Were these light or severe? ~ = «How often did they occur? __ ae on Name, Address & Relstionship of Informant’. = a ee PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED IN CASE OF EMERGENCY _OR- AND MAS. WILBUR BAUGH A nae ae oes Name SORDON ROAD-MILLEDGEV!LLE 31061 452-2453 So ale Ad ‘ress z Telephone No. EXHIBIT? 1-F-3 AUTHORIZATION AND TREATMENT PERMIT pete 5-/f 70 1, the neerest relative or guardien, hereby euthorize the Superintendent or any Central State Hospital staff member whom he might designate to 1. Employ any recognized psychiatric treatment, including electro-convulsive therapy, and to perform any and «|| operations, procedures or treatment that may be necessary or advisable for the benefit and improvement of the patient 2. Release to other hospitals, physicians, sociwl agencies or other professionally qualified agencies of persons any infor: mation which they may desire that is recorded in the medical and psychiatric record of the patient when such would con- tribute to the treatment of the patient 3. Arrange for public transportation home for the patient in the event that no responsible relative can come for him when he 1s ready for release from the hospital. 4. Permit patient to wear and use such personal items as clothing, jewelry, false teeth, spectacies and |, the nearest relative vt guardien, agree to essume full responsibility for the loss and destruction of such articles. ; = | a ane Sigheture of Petient ture of Nearest relative or guardian Ks Sherr COM. 645 Dee i968 EXHIBIT #1-F-4 = ee CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE - 1 ki« Qirur oe’. yw caylee Cou. istateghl. tr. &h Luchy , :, ty hu AAs ata.) “C+ Paet Le OU Liti GQSGM da. cs ie + t t WA 1 ne Ag Qa fe CLattAg dy Civ A4 Cad Cece © . - 4 = Aruy He the Hoflal, thes hth Qercas Avs lei grout ccHidf’ o. ae by : di y ow L4LLE Lye Case ? Cite wart Arup hi hav tapkid Aipiicccd. IMPRESSION. Ske —— uv af)) Ga thes ~ itd fn hay faThEr Mh Creceww le ae A Aetn, Ko leeed tere 0 a’ Loeces G Mike Coabira..iv, thes Po ite a tif VT “eid Chi DU TaAAL ij ; , , . le cu ki 4eTerp © Gated 41 hak Go ee There, d40 a” , 4 , ¢ , it 8 : eLia ber Ke Dh ential MAYA Ly ve cles (tna ° { i oe $ | D cate cod AU Clty Cad Aik, oreg! As Ti Lirw, ld As hee a a ‘ “f/f comme Aad Fr. (.¢ thy Che ‘ nf ~- : (uaksug Circtise 86 th Hien a oy Aacs . Ce hid fn 4 may P fae & Pg he Coctds he of Lee Ince sities * Aeccad Loh taser hh Aa g@rseu Wwkiis ki “ae Aut, discs ¢ Le AH Pa = Clty. Viekey Aad Lies pei ty: Lelaliy Ail Ue sh tie Xiph , c ADMISSION DATE: 0 | ADM SSION TYPE eat ee Date. | + ng if “g 4 10-14-1963 Oda pulir.rut | SU] 70! 9° 3-26 335 DATE OF BIRTH” MARITAL STATUS bi a . os te LRG t COST CSH-414 ADMISSION NOTES EXHIBIT /#1-G-1 87 li ita Jig? » ae RASA\AO ) He eigyade Jaf c" ACT! + SOEy 7, j “r ’ r . X tA, SA coer wt ite wy HO ab Che se , (ds € ‘ WANK OO. y (dur Uecesee Cf "Ade ate fi s a, ° / oh CLAM Lage” 2 Ais JIC Cadas™ * etrhsA, , Levee p _ly Cté Ce LCL Wa far c7é a Ve Facet ra p J ee rc, Glas» EXHIBIT #1-G-2 ADMISS.ON RECORD Oate 4. Lf - 70 a P . Z 6 DESCRIPTION: ace 4. weronr LOB weiGnt EPP vue ae PUL SE Lh ee Ke nese ded wi inc A, COMBATIVE —.. _. WITHOUT UNDERSTAMOING OF WHAT 15 ATTITUDE TOWARD VWIMISSION Fear HAPPENING PHYSICAL: ampuLarorr -_—. WHECL Chait, STRETCHER CRUTCHES 4 cait STAGGERING — OOOR OF ALCOHOL , ODOR OF PARALOEWYOE WW. BLIND PUPILS UNUSUALLY ENLARGED ...., OR UNUSUALLY SMALL « COLOR OF EYES a ¢ CLOTIUNG: WEL’ s@manceD Ae; DiSARmaNGEO WW. CL ean 4" someon SKIA: Unusud4erY PALE WW. FLUSHED ~~~. usguatLy MOIST » UNUSUALLY ORY CL tan £— . somen =) WAS PATIENT GivEN a BATH? Se rye Tees Abtencen SCRATCHES ~; BRUISES Chem), scapes » PEDICUL! PUBIS . Cuts BUeNS , §=ERUPTIONS — ... DECUBITUS nA: we. -Groomeo 4, visammanceo —_, marreo » COLOR OF wasnloatde CLEAN foe SOLED ..—, EVIDENCE OF PECICU! Ws HEAD TREATED FOR PEDICULI ; ORUNTATION Can Give wane as xnows wrene Mee 1s Se S. xnows approx oare —_Ma— PERSONAL POSSESSIONS: JtwtcRry ou. wowey —* val uaBle Papers , DESCRIBE THESE THREE i TEmS ON BACK OF SWEET: GLASSES... ss type DENTURES ; FULL OR PaRTIAN . + BRIDGE —......., DOES PATIENT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE PERSONAL BELONGINGS Ye MENTAL STATE DOES NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ~ . DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND QUESTIONS TALKS VERY LITTLE . OVERTALFATIVE » 1S TALK MEANINGFUL EMOTIONS: UNWARRANIFO FEAR UU EXPRESSIONS OF HATE , TOWARD wHOm ~» WEAS OF PERSECUTION . BY WHOM ; IDEAS: STRANGE EXPRESSED THOUGHTS (explo) COMPLAINTS | (ony expressions of phy sice! or mantel neture) am L SPECIMEN COLLECTED URINE a FECES fit. LUGGAGE. L Se. (Add any pertinent intermetion on ot whee) TRANSFERRED Pat PECEIYED BY: _ CHECKED BY: _ Khu tnalioor— LISTER, JOEY MACK 172,897 WM 54 10- 1- 1963 5-18-70 005 MGMATURE . OATE: = IL REN'S “LDG 1 SOUTH EXHIBIT +i-§ 89 CENTRAL STATE SPI TAL PEAGNGSTS THIS PATIENT WAS PRESS NITE TO sik 4 \hi SAAT R AND WAS GIVEN A DIAGNOSIS oF DIAGNOST 4S; Hyperkinetirc leaction of “ht Idhoand, ¢ 3086.0 PREDTSPOSITION: Poor inome environment STPRSS: ttn noen IMPATP YR IT: Moderate PVOGNOST S: ee TVAATMENT: TVPE CO AOn isin a ‘ CAT, me a VONINTAUY 2. $6 Feir te ouarded Hospitalization, Chematherany , Miliew Therapy school, and Individual Psychotherapy PY, ITSTe&2, Jory ar 172,807 ‘wr 64 Vevey B'My? 5 | 5-18.70 Ons Trae 4. GUTLAREN'S @LaAG. 2 vir: 212 6-39.77 IMAC NOSES EXHIBIT #l-1 ~~ ae —— rer ee ee A. B. Cc. EXHIBIT #2 Admission Summary Summary Progress Note - 6/75 Final Summary 91 EXHIBIT Admission Summary #2-A a. neh - aa... __ 7 [Ne Oo ae - - _— _- _ ot site SATE a0S6P Tai: a SQ0-174 - 297 hs ev. wae : omen ee Py er nw hla : ee : 2$4-95-0360 (so on OM MB NN mie - Qadideen's Unit OQ) S. ig-Parient; ec Mobile fark 5... Malet ev Ue is Be ide ae GEorgi- unk. — 482-304 ¢* a te: AM-1 2 County, Sores ‘diate : wr ationetenn + P eitomom % yy FS fs F# og | en Siethess | Seeniax dchiientierh, Mi Lledgeville ". Lege! Custody or Guar diensnin A@ tee lle . ctw a Ta piity Wee hi leg ‘ 7“ “we enruty _— | aeiene 7 (home ang Work) : : ~ prs pa Mpbue Baugh ——- ard Pao ale, de Mado, ne at a Carriv &. Shermer Pre Te Keb Pee -? Milledgeville, Ge. RE 20e. ot Chet —m yo Feb 0 = “_ i vie jhe Kelvred) How ome 3 . sadeoes oe we " aiec (teatve , ane ’ . f- "Weel Sau .« (Ver So derese) - - - —_ ‘ one ' (Tae Kes Mk Miliecgcyvi ic, (Step-Pather) ............. : beoaieks, astm, nex ($02). c ee - ! Oate ee Mode) BOOTIUNALL. ul uTUaceD: tat Ohaw — - mises _———- . . -_— —-_-_-~—--- HYPis KINBY.C KEACS1Un OF CHTLDNDOD: 368.00 PACE eo He -_ . | eccnees ~ o en — ——— peerres = ee nT. — 2 EXHIBIT #2-A-1 93 ‘EXHIBIT #2-B Summary Progress Note - 6/75 A i hn se —e SUMMATY ?ROGRESS NOTB 9* awe IGT: Ri: Joey Mack Lister CAS. NO.: _72,897 Chi..trea': Buildirg Adeission from Ba.dwin County, 9-12-72 Birthdate: 10-1-.3 Custody pending to in Juiy, i975 Mrs. Anr Etheridge Baldwin County DFCS Milledgeville, Ceorgia Joey was readmitted to this facility September 16, 197g, after a two week furlough. He had been here for two years being admitted for the first time May 18, 1970, and was placed on furlough September 5, 2972. He was to live at home wut attend the Schooi of Special Education here. This arrangement did not work out due *o the stress of the family situation and the inability of the school to effectively discipline Joey. Before his furlough .* he became disruptive in school, he dould be returned to the ward. AS an out patient, this coulc .ot be done. At the. oinc .: ou.d not have functioned ..: s public scnoo. -e . “ar "tee @68 ti .ttan. Cor Cla..-,cm DeRawacr «15 . ~suruptive . at i merc... 1975. Mr: . Shermer states us % >20) he was hyperactive anc “.strut orm 726%" DRI: ~t~s in aisec -* EXHIBIT #2-B-2 and +l = ance ee ee EXnIBIT #2-B-3 eyevctory .yepte: 5. Nestriction from milk aas helped so>c. e nee nod frequent .ireatmer with "e~ - for his allergies. te is .\se prone to skin lesions, minor 24s secoming infected ang dry skin. © sen he is under stress his allexgies ané skin problem is more eviden.. He was seen in Hemotology Clinic from June, 1973, to January, 1974, “>r generalized ecchywasis and petechrael rash on his body. It war felt this could have been drug induced froma Kefiex, an antibotic that he had to take for an infectec sutured arm. He Coes bruise very easily, from the slightest trauma he will turn bluish green. The hematology work up showed Idiopothic Thrombocytopenic Micraytic, Mildly hypochronic anemia. From time to tine Joey has to receive a course of treatment witr feaseal due to a low grade anemia. He was treated cuccessfully with Pr@dniasolone and dismissed from hematology clinic January 3°, 1975. Chest x-rays and BEG's have 2@un withir cor. Vimite. Theo examination of his eyes and hearing &. @B66 :.- Joey nat snojusced fairly i.e., co tre Fact he ~... t aavior still ewings from a nice well behaved chilé to ome wio is de.indau) und nothing could satisfy. He has a low frustrat.ca ‘leFanc. cc. © Doth the children and ciaff when *.wasted. « i 6 Ci Ftiry «sth S.. see. . ~pics-. oS wt... JChéiw, tae . SF@ app cpxicte .isccvier. ~ S@Law se «2s &- 97 PS Se ee Bele. .* Cownt TFCS will “a.e a caring Ceyardary © ver owns in July. Sopefully they wi.i be able to provide resource.» .-. -. » fox foster care, which as «tuted earlier would be the most benci--sial step in Joey's interest. He is going to the Learning Center 1/2 day, four days a week and Going well. His school probleas are more behavioral than academic. Joey would need a specialized foster home or certainly parents who coulé ride out the storm while he is adjusting. Since he finds it hard to believe he won't be rejected, a warm, supported, truly involved couple will be a neccessity. Joey has run away on several occassions recently. He states he is so unhappy anc would rather be ary place than here. This running awa‘ behavior started after the complete deterioration of the home and I fee] this is a bid for attention to his unhappy circumstances. Bve- though Joey zs functioned under a behavior modification system years, doesn t fu_ly understand ans ucept th co. «quence .- 15 G-alstGe, ©€ Acchbs. 18% Socanme us it ww. one Be les 5 Ces. often for the difficulty he has and quite often he is in trotble mo-e often than the other children on the ward. Joey received an IQ of 90 on Form L-M of the Stanford-Binet on 5-25-70 aud a score of 38 on the same test April 19, 1972. His achievenent Scores showed hia to be vunctioning about two years behind his chronological 9 ade i... but he nas shown improvement since admission. He appear. wos Wl ” Lisrat, Just tun TWH OCF aOmission i Bw - 172,897 su Wel-ds . Vosuntary i 5-L3-7Fu vb - ee as a Panes =] ' PALA ° ww? ? ; selene pe) A oe A - oof Poesy ae Oe seclahe — EXHIBIT #4-C-1 101 EXHIBIT # 3 Notice to Voluntary Patient of Rights 102 to Discharge y CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL NOTICE TO VIL L's KRY PATIENT OF RIGHTS TO DISCHARGE (By euthor: » of Section SK Vs 4, George Health Code, Ga. Laws 1969 pp. 905-45 TO (Vi cuntary Petrvent) Joey Mack Lister Date _ November 4, 1970 __CSH # 172,897 Please Le advised that you, your legal guardian, parent, spouse, attorney or wdult next-of «in may reques! your discharge in writing at ony time after tive (5) days following your admission to this Hospital, exciuding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holi- days, subj to the following provisions 1 If vou have been admitted on your own application and o request is made by @ person othér than your «i! your discharge may be conditioned upon your agreement thereto 2 MU you have been admitted prior to your 18th birthday on the application of your parent(s) or guards vour discharge prior tu becoming 18 years of ave may be conditioned upon the consent thereto of such perent(s) or guardian 4. I yow have been admitted as en adjudged incompetent on the application of your guardian, your divchurge prior to @ legel resturation of competency may be conditioned upon the consent of your guardien '‘ Within five (5) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after receipt of your written request for discharge by the Superintendent. you will be discharged, unless your attending physician finds that your discharge would \« unsafe for you cc others ww which cose proceedings for your involuntary hospitalization will be initiated within the five-day (« riod as provided fw bv low Notwith tanding the above you may also be discharged if, in the yudyement of your attendirs nhs. en Oe Beton? mum’ e ise . 7¢ . PRs) 2 (Superintendent) - , Phere ley oe knowledge ree get of thes notice D9 0e cece (Patient) EXHIBIT #3 ‘BEST GOPY AVAILABLE EXHIBIT #4 Relinquishment of Parental Rights 104 STATE OF GHOIclA COUNTY OF BALOWIN ROLINOUISIVINT O° PARENTAL RICHINS Wi the undersigned, Guu REMMOCA RUTLAND LiSicR SITIOTR and JOE M, LISTER, both of Laldwin Oounty, Georgia, do hk roby freely and volintarily consent to “ic placement of our adopted son, tovic, JOFY LISTER, by and through the CONTMAL STAIT HOSPITAL, a Stute mental institution located in .uid Baldvin County, Gcorgia; ami. WE horeby surrender all of our joint and individual parental righte, inclutirs ite right to lis custody wo wuurol, avi any and ali othr rights we have or may have, either jointly or individually, under the laws of the State of Georsia, in said child, unuw said Central State Hospital and the ,lacement agency or persons mereby designated by said state mental institution. We expressly waive any and all other and further notice of placement, if any, of said child, service of notice of placement, including any conferences, mectings, or hearings on said matter and the time and place thereof are also hereby waived. WE fully understand that we are wwquivocably relinquishing any and all of our parenta: rights for the expressed purposes hereinbefore stated, ‘This document is freely and voluntarily executed ry each of us and we fully understand its purport. 105 This the 95 Cay of Cael , 1974, EXHIBIT #5 Chicos i, faut, ak oaks ae CU Ra POM ate ee A Psychological Evaluation Signed and sealed an the presence of: “Dyed LL pe . © ven.tg. ol me eo : nai ie oie one Notary’ WOLiC, coluwn Cores, Geornia - i) es This te 2% aay of f fu. » 974, Signed and sealed ; in the presence of: ‘ Ta, FM Lies. z Mes Pd: 0 seca a. LV fre 2h/ad This is to certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Orioinal docurent, T RMS Chak! _w., Oi) County, "a, 8 pate ommission exnires 3/3/78 GiLmonc. WADDELL © PHILLIPS *TTORNCrS ar a. 107 478 Cours wiermsoe Sreeer 106 Pui locten 8, ©EOR6r8 bree, P PSYCinWAUGICAL EVALUATION NAME: Joey Lister WARD: Children's 1 South CASE NO.: 172897 REFERRED BY: Or. Gutierrez AGE: 12 ADMISSION DATE: 5/18/70; 9/18/72 SIRTHDATE: 10/1/63 EXAMINATION DATE: 7/8/75 COUNTY: Baldwin DATE OF REPORT: 7/9/75 LACKGROUND: Joey Lister has been a patient in the Children's Building for a period of approximately five years. He has been a severe behavior problem during most of his Stay. Joey's benavior appears to be somewhat cylical with periods of relatively appropriate Sehavior intersperses with severe acting out which manifests itself in aggression and hostility tewars others. On September 8, 1972, Joey was “urloughed to his foster mother. Shortly after his furlough, Joey became a discipline problem in school, and he was apparently unable to adjust to the home situation. Joey was re- admitted on September 18, 1972. Joey has an extensive history, and further medical, psychologicai, and social reports are available in the ward chart. INTERVIEW DATA: Joey expressed considerable anxiety about his relationship with his parents. he stated, “I know their names, but ! don't want to know them. I don't talk about them anymore.” When asked about his father, Joey said, "I never seen my real fatner." ke then hid his head and began to cry. Joey feels that his natural parents “gave nim away." Judging by his attitude and behavior, Joey has considerable repressed anger and emotional poe concerning his relationship to his parents. Joey also refused to discuss his re ationship with his foster parents although he did indicate that he felt rejected by them. _, Joey's main concern during the interview was his hope of leaving the Children's Building for foster home placement. Joey stated that he believed he could behave if ne were placed outside the hospital. He is fearful that this placement may not occur and avoids thinking about it. BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS: Joey came to the testing and interview sessions neatly cressed an splayed gooc persona’ hygiene. He was very active during the testing session, grabbing test materials, and walking around the room inspecting various objects «und books on the shelves. Joey eventually settled down after some coaxing, and v@ WaS Goneraliy cooverative with the examiner. He was negativistic at times during “se testing. Joey wis easi*y frustratec by tasks which he felt were too difficult or 5. ~~ TPUSsM>* ce tc” -- nt we pice yer. “se wes: , cestize. *. eres: 8° GiuS Of $3 6 Gee” oY pewiS sociated wit? »sychosis. TESTS ADMINISTERED: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC-R), Bender Gestalt Test, Sentence Completion, Oraw-A-Person (D-A-P), Blacky Picture Series. TEST RESULTS: On the WISC-R, Joey achieved a Verbal IQ of 72, a Performance IQ of 101, and a Full Scale IQ of 84. The Full Scale IQ places him in the Dull normal range of intelligence. Joey seemed to be easily frustrated on this test and gave up on tasks that he felt were too difficult for him. Joey preferred the performance subtests and generally would not put forth the same effort with verbal tasks. His verbal score may be somewhat below his actual capability because of his low frustration tolerance; however, the examiner feels that he is handicapped by a lack of verba) skills such as associative thinking, verbal comprehension, and the utilization of abstract concepts in solvine problems. His low vocabulary score sugpeete that his quality of language anc richnuss of ‘deas is 50’ ow average. His intellectua! strengths Stem to e 1s dercedu3l ceisitivity, atteition te ctail, and concent “z-ien. voey i « 298 Ws 3 a° Guat *2 Pts “rowmens od Ne has -he Capecity for ar .coriice este: ce OS. ° Stas “QnS. obs 2 > @xavibits at “. st averace ability; or -cfcep.u.: u.2 78is BEG sy eidS.5, Wl... SCRQuere Isiveroal concert format‘. EXHIBIT #5-A-1 108 Msychunm@tor testing indicatec that Joey's visual-motor maturation is age appropriate. were waS NO Suggestion of cen.re) rervous system dys function. Personality testing revealed tnat Joey as deep feelings of inadequacy, probably resulting from the insecurity ond euocional Geprivation of nis chiidnooc. Joey has many Infanviie meecs which wo-» % ret in his chilcnood. These needs ... Sti.l very much with him and require restitutior.. Joey has a very pessimistic outiook of his world although outwardly he tries to maintain an appearance of hope and optimism. Joey expresses stronc unresolved conflicts concerning his relationship to his Parents which he attempts to blot out of consciousness. These are extremely painful areas of thougnt and feeling that he is fearful of confronting. There ar. some developed fantasies about “killing mother or dad” which is a way of attempting to deal with his anger and hurt. One of the important goals of therapy with Joey would be to establish a therapeutic relationship to assist Joey in expressing some of these repressed feelings of ager and nostility. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Joey is an insecure, emotionally starved child who is experfencing deep fee‘ings 01 inadequacy and hopelessness. He has repressed some very powerful feelings of rejection and hostility. Joey needs a warm secure relation- ship with adult parent figures who will be able to cope, at first, with his excessive Geimancs for their attention and affection. His fear of being rejected again is extremely strong and it will require time and patience before his excessive demands will subside. He is in need of continued psychotherapy to assist him in ventilating his repressed feelings and to help provide some Stability. Continued hospitalization would not provide tie emotional climate necessary to meet Joey's needs. It is my recommendation that Joey be considered for foster home placement with continued outpatient therapy. Potential foster parents should be counselled and clearly informed concerning Joey's needs and specific problems. nyan Lincoln, Psychologist Marilyn kdmistion, Pi.b. Cuiidren anc Acolescents Unit linical Director, Psychology Children and Adolescents Unis cu: heatd ChslE, File. EXHIBIT #5-A-2 109 EXHIBIT #6 A. Juvenile Court Petition - Baldwin Department of Family and Children Services B. Report Accompanying Petition C. Juvenile Court Order Granting Temporary Custody to Department of Family and Children Services 110 a te: ..*te at Joa sek LAstor Jr. wbeddei on Giaer | f iv WW. °° ts ott the Petitioner, tr. '. Live following factors Moe woo cb. forth so the cuytion. Lister jo, 1%. CR ae ajo a ety 7 POKCMise wudd cui! Me Corban G.>,t@ deme Central Sbete Muceitn. + wd"! elad wen mere eLilety | Ne ; P ¢ Awa se D@Ch iia!» lee a .t tl, sot Wd. ws aes MIE, BEL! anther. tur Kept alt “¢ us! EXIIBIT #G-A-1 111 terper tantoves. atid cle vie , begd oot wae’ «© VO f chun in tw de sch u t curt GyBton © Se c3 OL: ' w! “+ to hawtion ‘3 veitine, svba « +4 i we 4 . . vorpal oo ip tibhes waco chiwren hac orwed by tine chil. “4 Mid VS wwe Dt ced 16 Lites . we Ke with Comral State :, count upprwxiautely three youru wy! to lua to deal with nate ertld 4) Oo el? Se ee . ot BN his buhavdor os Genes cat foveal dt be woula be Gent | ” - spther ard Mire whores ’ orks aid mothe. ‘ '* ' settot: 456955°D. * r90rrnoOl «td + pte ew? VOL *ty wbwiwe. ly ve J "ha somls. ur bier ae ao! 200 the Chil =i) enothur Living RaVveayerwent O60) be OMe ‘Triste ‘ ‘tte pe re eee a ee eu oo fy o» For van obild, wid oy ress jen Pe, os @ l ; er - aSilise o 3 4° “Ant. timo. be te bd.obecd ve »* oot @ aged Clee death reterpeb tive UPPCALI, 1.22C ULYVOTCUL to » wan Ald chal wau Uded feat ov. agi, salt wioptaye oo iw eyed dw head pw contest wit: suta chiid for tho pwt .ovorsh ft, vi opti iat gee Pot eer ad . ' r ¢ ‘ co thio thilds berit.c. eamygert .n EXHIBIT #G-A-2 112 CF ee NE A a A tne ee Se en er be AEE oe tye poe y Clete. 6 Of cub lace Lacter Jte bu séaue td 6 ne. eal chibtran «ittiess. bl tie . ae that gady © pay &) Quayyrlat: avon © nist Potitic: co yb. *): 0 Seon 1 oe be es hepoto Toyu. 9% tut / ‘1 wets Lith «corny to Lug en, GS ones ethede Cormes MOpar ir uit forme oem eryce lee. ye Gworn ty La. Oo ur, om Aaformeiit ow “Lj. ee ee es . ” Vetasy Pubs, fab... ea. EXHIBIT #c¢-5-? 113 ’ t- “a tol rl tae dalewin County De ootraont Lister, Joo Mack Jr. ef Pa;aly ani Uni) ieen Sorvices Child dn Cente. itots Uoopttal “Yt Aube uy, ethoocluge Cease wsker II Und lures Gusa day November 10, 1975 In November of 1773, ‘ur agency was conticted br Carolyn Grant, social worker in the cilidventu Wuliding ot Comtral tuiv jeucital concerning *he ebove manu child, After civiiys doud ba kyrcern on the chilu's situation uh etated thet tun. inoamor mente. 69 rolimyuioh cuwwtouy of Joey to our ave y and roywosotec that T tal: wit tes. Shernsr about this pooulbility, In early vecomiw 1 telkel with hee, Shorwr and wo discusned tne different wayy iwt custody 2c rei- anjuished to our efency. Mre. Shormor otated thai on met Usen working towar. ier decision of relinyuishing custouy of jucy fur enproaimstely @ year ami « salt, In January of 1974, 1 ciecusced with Mro. heroser the process (thot our state office would require for w to take custouy of this child. Mre, cherwer ani her ex-huslani, vr. Lieter, wore requested to petition the cyuurt to have custody of Joey given to our Agency. © agresd to take temporary custody of this child ami requested that a support claus be included in the couri orier, In May of 1974, wo received a copy of a decusent cignei by Mra. Sherwer and Ur. Lister, attempting to relinquish custoly to Central otate Hospital, Thio paper was notcrised hy 4 notary public, but did not have tho signature of e Judge. clonal Schuyler, legal advisor to Central utate Hospital, statou that Jontral State Hoopital could not take custody of « chil as they ero not a child placing agency. Since this inciJunt in the epring of 197), wo have been in contact with Mrs. “hormer's lawyer and heve tried to aac it clear that we wre EXHIBIT #G-B-2 114 requesting that the parents of the child petition the cuurt to give us temporery custody, On Octover 3, 1975, Judge Owns of tho ;ederal Court onisred that & petition be presented to the Juvenile Cuurt of Baldwin County by 5:00 P.M. om October 31 or he would sigr 4 statozent placing custody of Joey with our Agency. Cur legal adviow wer thot thio action by tho Federal Court Judge would only compliest« otter: of cuntoJy further, ov @ petition ani an orver giving we teqorury cuttou of Jooy wa) presented to Juige Jackson and signed by lun or Uctebor ta, 1975. BACKCROU ALD CUNENT STAT Joey wan adopted as a young infant iy lus, ‘arrio Lister -hermor ami Dr. Joe Mack Lister Or. The marriage of lise adoptive parents wes a turbulent one ani ended in divorce ir 1966, It was in the divorce decree that Joey would live with hie «wtner, wut Ur. Lister aw order @d to pay child support ami was allowed visiting privileges. This decision wes hanied dow in the Superior vourt or Mit couaty. Although Dr. Lioter has not supported ani has fulfilie: . parcntal respensibilities towarus this child, tide orier has remained unchingud. The rights of neither parent have been terminated ani at the cresont time there are two legal parents involved with Joay'n custody; his mother, Mre. Shermer, and his aloptive fether, Dr. Listor, Joey was aimittet to Central state Hospital in May of 197, by his mother. He haa become too much of « probles for his movher to menage at hogs, Joey wes having problem in school and also within the neighborhood, At the time of his admission his behavior ws described as “axtrowely agressive with no regard for authority”. Ono of Jooy‘'s EXHIBIT #G-B-2 115 - 3. teachers iescribed him as o “very hyperactive child i. overmrescts to all situatio [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0830%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.