{"title":"Persons with disabilities: Breaking down barriers","authors":"Leslie Salzman","doi":"10.18356/c107798c-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................522 I. GUARDIANSHIP AS A VIOLATION OF THE INTEGRATION MANDATE OF THE ADA ...........................................................................................................................526 A. Government Service, Program, or Activity .................................................528 B. “Qualified Individuals with Disabilities” ...................................................531 C. Is the Integration Mandate Properly Applied to the Experience of Individuals Living in the Community If They Are Not at Real Risk of Institutionalization? .................................................................................532 D. Remaining Hurdles in Olmstead Challenges to Guardianship................534 II. USING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS TO CHALLENGE OR LIMIT GUARDIANSHIP ..........................................................................................................538 A. Nature and Duration of Guardianship: Jackson v. Indiana and Youngberg v. Romeo ...................................................................................540 1. Scope of Order Must Bear Some Reasonable Relationship to Its Purpose .....................................................................................540 2. The Obligation To Provide Training and Skills Development and To Limit the Duration of Guardianship .......544 a. Training and Skills Development .......................................545 b. Challenge to Unlimited Duration of the Guardianship Order .............................................................546 B. Does the Court’s Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges Provide a Substantive Due Process Path to the Recognition of Universal Legal Capacity? ........................................................................................................548 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................554","PeriodicalId":368993,"journal":{"name":"The Report on the World Social Situation 2018","volume":"366 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Report on the World Social Situation 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18356/c107798c-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................522 I. GUARDIANSHIP AS A VIOLATION OF THE INTEGRATION MANDATE OF THE ADA ...........................................................................................................................526 A. Government Service, Program, or Activity .................................................528 B. “Qualified Individuals with Disabilities” ...................................................531 C. Is the Integration Mandate Properly Applied to the Experience of Individuals Living in the Community If They Are Not at Real Risk of Institutionalization? .................................................................................532 D. Remaining Hurdles in Olmstead Challenges to Guardianship................534 II. USING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS TO CHALLENGE OR LIMIT GUARDIANSHIP ..........................................................................................................538 A. Nature and Duration of Guardianship: Jackson v. Indiana and Youngberg v. Romeo ...................................................................................540 1. Scope of Order Must Bear Some Reasonable Relationship to Its Purpose .....................................................................................540 2. The Obligation To Provide Training and Skills Development and To Limit the Duration of Guardianship .......544 a. Training and Skills Development .......................................545 b. Challenge to Unlimited Duration of the Guardianship Order .............................................................546 B. Does the Court’s Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges Provide a Substantive Due Process Path to the Recognition of Universal Legal Capacity? ........................................................................................................548 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................554