Doe v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, 407 S.C. 623

Doe, an 86-year-old woman living alone with limited support, was removed from her home after Richland County deputies found the dwelling in dire condition (roof leak, water issues, clutter) and observed hoarder-like conditions.
DSS filed a petition seeking a determination that Doe was a vulnerable adult under the Omnibus Adult Protection Act to justify protective custody and services.
The family court held a 72-Hour Hearing and later a merits hearing, with Dr. Harari evaluating Doe and recommending continued monitoring if she returned home.
The court ultimately found Doe met the statutory definition of a vulnerable adult and ordered DSS to provide services to repair and maintain her home; Doe appealed.
On review, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding the evidence failed to show Doe’s advanced age or other impairments substantially impaired her ability to care for herself under the Act, and remanded for a new review hearing to assess current conditions.
A dissent argued the majority narrowed the definition of a vulnerable adult and would have affirmed the family court’s vulnerable-adult finding and continuation of protective services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe is a vulnerable adult under the Act	Doe (Doe) argues age alone does not establish vulnerability	DSS contends Doe’s age and health impairments meet the vulnerable-adult definition	No; Doe did not meet the threshold definition by clear and convincing evidence
Standard of proof for determining vulnerability	Clear and convincing standard should apply given potential liberty impact	Lower or unspecified standard used in DSS proceeding	Heightened standard (clear and convincing) applies; DSS failed to meet it
Whether there was substantial risk of neglect if Doe were not deemed a vulnerable adult	If not vulnerable, protective services not justified	Even without a formal vulnerable-adult finding, conditions may justify intervention	Not reached/needed because threshold not met
Whether protective services were necessary to protect from substantial risk of neglect	No evidence linking age to inability to self-care; conditions remedied	Conditions at time of removal showed risk necessitating services	Not reached due to failure to prove vulnerability; remand for current status review
Remand for updated review hearing			Remanded for family court to assess current status given possible changes during appeal

In re Conservatorship of Townsend, 209 N.W.2d 424 (Mich.App. 2011) (vulnerable-adult analysis requires impairment affecting decision-making about property (conservatorship context))
In re Conservatorship of Goodman, 766 P.2d 1010 (Okla.Ct.App. 1988) (conservatorship requires impairment to affect property decisions)
Endicott v. Saul, 176 P.3d 560 (Wash.App. 2008) (guardian/guardian-ship context for vulnerable adults)
People v. Cline, 741 N.W.2d 563 (Mich.App. 2007) (evidence of care needs in vulnerable-adult prosecutions)
Davis v. Zlatos, 123 P.3d 1156 (Ariz.App. 2005) (vulnerable adult status supported by physical impairment and reduced self-care)
Decker v. State, 66 So.3d 654 (Miss. 2011) (vulnerable-adult act; impairment required for protection)
State v. Stubbs, 555 N.W.2d 55 (Neb. App. 1996) (requirement of substantial impairment for exploitation cases)
In re Knight, 317 P.3d 1068 (Wash.Ct.App. 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard for vulnerable-adult protection orders)
Farr v. Searles, 910 A.2d 929 (Vt. 2006) (civil-vulnerable-adult standard of proof)
Townsend ( Mich.App. 2011 ), 809 N.W.2d 424 (Mich.App. 2011) (conservatorship/vulnerable adult analysis)
Endicott v. Saul, 176 P.3d 560 (Wash.App. 2008) (guardian/guardian-ship context for vulnerable adults)