Forced drug and mental health treatment of uncooperative teenagers is a contentious issue for parents and their children. It’s a bonanza for treatment providers as well. And as this case illustrates, parents, in an effort to maintain the cash cow for such programs, have employed the probate courts in an effort to keep their children incarcerated even after age 18. This court not only refused the request, but rather angrily registered its indignation over being so used.

The parents of a 17-year-old brought a petition seeking guardianship two months before his 18th birthday. They alleged "mental infirmity" based on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and polysubstance abuse. The parents were seeking orders over the person and the estate. Not only did they wish to compel his continued participation in a residential school program, but they also wanted to transfer money to him as part of an estate planning strategy and didn’t wish for him to have access to the funds.

The Court denied the petition and brought the issue back to decide compensation for the attorney appointed to represent "John Doe." Also, the Court, stated that it had encountered a number of similar petitions which it considered meritless. So it set out to explain it’s position and hopefully discourage the practice.

The Court’s reduction of the mental illness to laymen’s terms was that John Doe was "a rebellious youth with a short attention span. A bad attitude and a fickle nature." The Court went on to observe that this "may not make for an attractive personality, but they do not warrant the deprivation of constitutionally protected rights and liberty."

Added the Court, the mere use or even abuse of illegal drugs, in the absence of functional impairment, doesn’t warrant the kind of deprivation of liberty that would result from granting a guardianship.

This opinion was followed up with a rebuke to petitioner’s counsel for failing to adequately assess the circumstances here that clearly would not justify the Court granting any relief.

The court concluded by awarding counsel for the respondent the full amount of his bill to be paid by the petitioner/parents.