Library Collections: Document: Full Text

In general, this question has been put on an "either-or" basis, but consideration would seem in order whether this should be related to the proposals for breaking up the present large institutions into more functionally cohesive units.

As in other areas of mental retardation care should be taken not to assume that future planning can be done on the basis of present service statistics, because they are more likely to reflect present practices than present needs, or future potentials.

There will have to be considered a multiplicity of seemingly opposing trends: On the one hand, the lengthened lifespan of the institutionalized retarded is resulting in longer occupancy of institutional beds, but the greater availability to families of facilities assisting in the community care of the retarded is diminishing the demand partially. Reduction in infant mortality and the introduction of such lifesaving measures as antibiotics increase the number of severely disabled and retarded children, but the greater availability of community services and employment opportunities facilitate return to the community of a greater number of adolescent and young adult retardates. And finally the trend toward greater use of residential facilities for intensive training of those who for various reasons are unable to profit sufficiently from community education and training must be taken into account.

Legal Status of the Mentally Retarded Child

Insufficient attention has been given in the past to the legal status of the mentally retarded child and adult, particularly with reference to the degree of legal protection required as related to the degree of the mental handicap. A large number of retarded, by far the majority, are capable of moving about in the community, attending school, being employed or participating in formally organized or informal activities, yet by virtue of their being considered mentally retarded, are considered not to have the minimum endowment for an independent life. Conflicting views come into evidence concerning the ways in which this situation is being approached in various ways by our states. The existing sociolegal instrumentality of guardianship is a complicating factor since it does not allow for any limited personal guardianship but results in complete denial of independent legal status.

Minnesota has been a pioneer in working out a system of state guardianship for the retarded, administered through the state and county public welfare departments and proposals of this nature are now under discussion in several other states. At least one authority raises serious question whether such agency guardianship (public or private) does not violate the spirit and purpose of the guardianship concept as a rather personal relationship. (2) Objection also has been raised to legislation which provides for the appointment of a public agency as guardian for retarded children living with their parents in the community. Most recently the State of Washington enacted legislation providing for the informal appointment by parents, of "Parental Successors" whose task it is to look after the welfare of retarded individuals after the parents' death. However, Washington also has a formal guardianship appointment through the courts which would supersede the parental successor.

Other more specific questions need to be explored: What restrictions are justifiable regarding the marriage of mentally retarded individuals? Since an increasing number of retarded young people are earning some wages, what situation should pertain to their property rights?

A serious problem regarding the legal status of the mentally retarded has long been the question of criminal responsibility. Present law and court practice does not recognize mental retardation under any name as grounds for legal defense, hence even severely mentally retarded young people have to stand for criminal trial. In this frame of reference it is again crucial to recognize the wide range covered by the term mental retardation and to develop different approaches based on a realistic appraisal of the individual's total capacity.

The Role of Government in Mental Retardation

Because the problem of mental retardation has been neglected for so long, there is in many areas no clear precedent for governmental responsibility, as between local, country, and state responsibility, and as between public and private responsibility. As a lifetime disability, mental retardation requires long-term services usually considered most appropriately as the State's responsibility. However, with the growing emphasis on community services, with residential care as a secondary measure, the participation of the local and/or county government has increasingly been under discussion and in various places already activated. This brings up a point of vital interest to the community planner: What tax base will be used for the various mental retardation services?