Preview:

HEADNOTE: Megan Cathey v. Board of Review, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, No. 12, September Term, 2011 HEALTH LAW; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LAW; RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES: A developmentally disabled adult who lives in Maryland for only two weeks a month, pursuant to a divorce decree, is eligible for Developmental Disability Administration services as a "resident" of Maryland, during the time she actually lives in Maryland.

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-10-004413 AA AA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 12 September Term, 2011

MEGAN CATHEY v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE

Bell, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene *Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: October 25, 2011 *Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

In this case we must determine whether a developmentally disabled adult with an interstate custody arrangement qualifies for Developmental Disability Administration ("DDA") services in Maryland. Petitioner Megan Cathey is a developmentally disabled adult whose custody traverses state lines. Pursuant to a New Jersey court order, Petitioner lives with her mother in New Jersey for two weeks a month and with father in Maryland for the remaining two weeks. With this arrangement in mind, Petitioner's father applied for DDA services several years ago, but the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("Department") determined that her interstate custody did not give her the requisite Maryland residency to qualify for such services. The Department's Board of Review affirmed, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City upheld the Board's decision. Petitioner sought relief from this Court, and we granted certiorari on April 22, 2011. See Cathey v. Bd. of Review, 418 Md. 586, 16 A.3d 977 (2011). Petitioner presented the following question for our review: Is a developmentally disabled individual eligible for services provided or funded by the DDA during the time she resides with her father in Maryland in accordance with a court order granting the father joint legal and residential custody, and directing that the individual alternate her time equally with each parent in successive two-week intervals? For the reasons explained below, we shall hold that the Petitioner is eligible for DDA services during the time she lives with her father in Maryland. We shall also hold that the concept of "residence" as presented in the relevant portion of the Code of Maryland Regulations is not as exacting as the legal concept of "domicile."

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Petitioner Megan Cathey was born November 21, 1977. She is developmentally disabled, and her diagnoses have included mental retardation, neurological impairment, and bipolar disorder. She requires regular care and supervision to perform many day-to-day tasks, such as meal-planning, budgeting, and accessing community resources. In 1990, Petitioner's parents divorced. Her father, Joe Cathey, has lived in Maryland since 1989. He lives with his wife in Maryland, and Petitioner's mother, Virginia, lives in New Jersey. The initial divorce decree gave primary residential custody of Petitioner to her mother, subject to visitation rights. In accordance with this decree, Petitioner had a monthly Wednesday-to-Sunday visit with her father. In 2005, Dr. Charles Diament, a psychologist, was appointed by the New Jersey courts to evaluate Petitioner's custody arrangements. Dr. Diament concluded that

Petitioner's parents should share "joint legal custody" and "should share physical custody on an equal basis." Dr. Diament reasoned that Petitioner "should have extensive contact with both parents." Based on Dr. Diament's report, the Superior Court of New Jersey modified the initial divorce decree. Concluding that Petitioner's father had "shown a change in circumstances that would warrant a reevaluation of custody," the court issued a post-judgment order, effective February 25, 2006, giving Petitioner's parents joint legal and residential custody. The court ordered that Petitioner spend her time with each parent equally in alternating two-

2

week blocks. Petitioner's parents implemented the new arrangement in March 2006. Since then, Petitioner has alternated her time living with her father in Maryland and her mother in New Jersey. When Petitioner is in New Jersey, she receives funding and services from the New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities, and she attends an Easter Seals care program. When she is in Maryland, she participates in the day program at a facility known as The Arc Carroll County, Monday through Friday. She has received no state funding in Maryland, however, and her father pays for services at the Arc. New Jersey does not pay for any of Petitioner's services while she is in Maryland. In December 2005, Petitioner's father applied for DDA services, citing the pending revisions to the custody arrangement and the receipt of comparable services in New Jersey. Portions of both the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Law and the Code of Maryland Regulations govern such an application. The Developmental Disabilities Law mandates that applicants receive an evaluation to determine whether they have a developmental disability or otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for services. Md. Code (1986, 2009 Repl. Vol.),

Download Cathey v. Dept. of Health.pdf

Maryland Law