TRENTON, NJ -- Aging caregivers of relatives with developmental disabilities can rest easier now knowing  their loved ones can receive much-needed state help for their adult children, under a state Supreme Court ruling issued today.

The ruling overturns a Division of Developmental Disabilities regulation that barred people with developmental disabilities from getting state services if they were unable to prove that at least three specific conditions, such as speech problems or an inability to care for themselves, had existed before they turned 22.

The Department of the Public Advocate filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case and argued before the Supreme Court that the division’s regulations violated state law.

“This is a victory for thousands of families who spend years caring for their relatives without seeking state help,” said Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen. “It means these families will be able to ensure their loved ones are well-cared for, as parents become too old to continue to provide that care.

“The high court’s ruling will have an enormous impact on human lives across the state,” Chen added. “It will actually create an incentive for parents and loved ones to care for their family members. This is good for families and it helps conserve state resources.”

The unanimous ruling is particularly important because the medical community now recognizes certain developmental disorders that were unknown as little as 10 years ago. People with these illnesses have a difficult time documenting their existence at a time when the medical community did not even recognize the disease.

That was the case with T.H., a 55-year-old man who is at the center of the Supreme Court ruling. T.H. has a disorder known as Asperger’s Syndrome, which only became recognized in the 1990s – long after T.H. had passed the 22-year cutoff age. When his mother died in 2000, his siblings sought help from the state to care for him.

In denying services, the division said T.H.’s relatives failed to provide medical or other professional evidence that the disability existed during his youth. The division discounted the testimony of his family members as anecdotal.

“Because T.H. was an adult long before Asperger’s was a recognized disorder, medical, educational and psychological documentation of his symptoms and treatment before age twenty-two was simply not available,” the ruling said. “The observations of his family…should have been considered an adequate substitute.”

The high court also ruled the division’s regulation overstepped the provisions of the law governing the delivery of services to people with developmental disabilities by placing more restrictions on the type of conditions that must be documented before age 22 than are required under the law.

"To rule otherwise would be to punish families that have chosen to care for their disabled children in lieu of placing them in a facility,” the justices wrote.

While the case focused on a person with Asperger’s, the ruling would apply to other developmental disabilities, as well.

An estimated 19,000 New Jersey residents with developmental disabilities are living with caregivers age 60 or older who have never registered with the state Division of Developmental Disabilities, according to The State of the State of Developmental Disabilities 2005, a report published by the University of Colorado, Department of Psychiatry.

“This addresses a much larger problem,” Chen said. “Prior to this ruling, people with developmental disabilities who live with aging caregivers faced a very scary and uncertain future. They can rest a little easier now, knowing they have options when they become unable to care for their adult children.”

This is one of the first cases the Department of the Public Advocate had entered into since the department re-opened about one year ago and the first to be decided by the Supreme Court. Advocating for individuals with developmental disabilities is one of the department’s key priorities through the Division of Developmental Advocacy and the Division of Public Interest Advocacy.

Read the court's ruling