Davis v. Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services
Ohio Court of Appeals
2000 WL 1513752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4754 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Maureen Davis (plaintiff) was the subject of multiple public-health complaints and self-neglect referrals between 1976 and 1999. Social services came to Davis’s home multiple times over the years, offering to help her manage her health and her home, but all offers were refused. In 1999, Cleveland Police Officer Riley observed Davis in the street outside her home, noting that she was dirty, disheveled, and had open sores on her face and arms. Davis refused Riley’s offer of medical aid. Riley also noticed that Davis’s home was filled with garbage and smelled rancid. Riley reported Davis’s condition to his superiors. Shortly after, the City of Cleveland issued a search warrant allowing Environmental Health Department inspectors to enter Davis’s home, accompanied by Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services (CCAPS) (defendant). Davis attempted to bar entry to her home, insisting everything was fine. Upon inspection, the home was found to be filthy, full of garbage and feces from Davis’s 16 pets, and infested with insects and rodents. The electricity was shut off, and there were multiple cans of kerosene buried in the garbage, creating a fire hazard. Davis was immediately transported to the psychiatric ward at St. Vincent’s Charity Hospital. It took a crew of three cleaners in protective gear 10 days to clean Davis’s home. CCAPS petitioned for a guardian to be appointed for Davis, arguing she was mentally incompetent. At a hearing, two doctors who had examined Davis testified that Davis suffered from dementia, delusions, severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, and was mentally incompetent. The probate court held that Davis was incompetent and appointed a guardian. Davis appealed, arguing that (1) the condition of her home was insufficient basis to appoint a guardian and (2) the probate court failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to guardianship.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spellacy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.