Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Guardianship of Phillip B.

Court of Appeal of California
188 Cal. Rptr. 781 (1983)


Facts

Based on the recommendation of a pediatrician and a social worker, Warren B. and his wife, Patricia, (defendants) institutionalized their 14-year-old son, Phillip B., who had Down’s syndrome. At first, the defendants visited Phillip regularly, but soon the defendants became detached and uninterested in Phillip’s development. Later, Phillip was transferred to We Care, a residential facility for developmentally disabled children. Herbert H. and his wife Patsy (plaintiffs) volunteered at We Care and quickly took an interest in Phillip’s well-being. We Care’s administrator, Jeanne Haight, sought to enroll Phillip in a preschool program that required the consent of Phillip’s parents. The defendants agreed to Phillip’s participation in the program but took no interest in visiting Phillip or inquiring about his developmental progress. The defendants were also reluctant to actively pursue necessary medical treatment for Phillip. As the defendants became more disconnected with their son, Phillip’s emotional and physical relationship with the plaintiffs grew stronger. Eventually, the plaintiffs filed a petition to be appointed as the guardians of Phillip B.’s person and estate. The defendants opposed the petition. After a 12-day trial, the trial court granted the issuance of letters of guardianship to the plaintiffs with the authority to consent on Phillip’s behalf to necessary medical treatment. The defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Racanelli, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.