The 57-year-old husband in a divorce matter punched his attorney in open court. He revealed his attorney's entire trial strategy to his wife and repeatedly faxed defamatory statements about his attorneys to people across the nation. During one court hearing, he interrupted the oral argument of his attorney by frantically passing notes to him. When admonished by the judge to stop interrupting the hearing, he began to eat his notes.
Courts have the power to appoint a qualified person to perform specific tasks on behalf of an individual who is unable to adequately represent his or her own interests. The scope of the appointee's duties is defined by the court. A judge will often request the guardian ad litem to conduct extensive fact-finding and report back to the court with recommendations.
He discharged his attorneys, who then asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect his interests during the divorce proceedings. The motion, unopposed by his wife, was the first time a New York court had heard such a request. The husband vigorously objected to the appointment. The court, aware that the husband was consuming a gram of cocaine and a quart of vodka daily, was reluctant to declare the husband incompetent and unable to manage his own affairs within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law.
Holding: The court appointed the husband's personal attorney to function as a limited guardian ad litem. The guardian did not have the power to force the husband to comply with court orders or arrange a settlement without approval. He could, however, ignore the husband's ever-changing and irrational requests and was given the authority "to exercise his professional discretion as he undertakes the difficult task of representing a Defendant who is largely self destructive." The court also pointed out that the husband would have only himself to blame if he refused to cooperate with his guardian. The divorce would proceed, and the husband would have to live with the consequences.
| Robert Meyer, Ph.D. University of Louisville |
Dr. Meyer comments: Now we have a parallel to criminal proceedings where observers are moved to comment "Anybody who did that has to be crazy." This husband manifests several apparently bizarre actions, certainly leading his attorneys not only to desperately desire to get off this case (a legal parallel to the psychiatrist in the movie What About Bob?) but also to suggest that the husband is incompetent in some aspects of his divorce proceeding.
There may be a rationale behind some of these seemingly bizarre behaviors. For example, he may have faxed his attorney's defense strategy to his wife in order to intimidate her. Perhaps it is a gesture of his reluctance to go through with the divorce, or is a manifestation of guilt for his part in bringing about the divorce.
Ultimately the court was ambivalent. A guardian was appointed whose function seems to be to keep the process moving. The appointee may have a chance to succeed only because he already has the trust of the defendant. At the same time the court admonished the defendant in a manner suitable for a rational individual. Part of the court's dilemma arose from a combination of seemingly self-destructive behaviors, evidence of substance abuse, absence of a formal evaluation or a proffered diagnosis, and apparent ability to some degree to carry on the other affairs of his life. No doubt the substance abuse he manifests is likely to be disruptive; yet, many who are so abusing do not show any similar behaviors.
Since there is no attempt to find him incompetent in anything but this very narrow range, it could be the court's way of dealing pragmatically with someone who is no doubt a royal pain in the ass for everyone. But, as a precedent, it is certainly a questionable solution. There are plenty of people whose behavior could be construed as impairing them as they go through a divorce. This could lead to a lot of guardian ad litem work.
