DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, 320 Conn. 178

In 2007 the Connecticut legislature amended the conservatorship scheme (P.A. 07-116), replacing the former ‘best interests’ guidance with a defined set of factors (45a-650(h)).
Douglas DeNunzio, an adult with mental distress, required a conservator; Sharon DeNunzio contested whether his father Peter DeNunzio or Sharon should be conservator.
The Probate Court appointed an attorney and guardian ad litem and held an evidentiary hearing focused on who should be conservator, considering medical history and treatment preferences.
The guardian ad litem, Margenot, submitted a report recommending the defendant as conservator, which the plaintiff argued was hearsay and not admissible; the court did not admit the report into evidence.
The Probate Court, citing testimony of treating professionals and the statutory factors, appointed the defendant as conservator without bond; the Appellate and Trial Courts affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether best interests remain a proper consideration	Best interests were expressly removed by 07-116 from 45a-650, so it cannot guide the decision.	Best interests may inform or accompany the statutory factors and the court did consider the factors.	Best interests are not a factor or guide under 45a-650(h); court's reliance on it was not prejudicial.
Whether the Probate Court properly applied the statutory factors (45a-650(h))	The court failed to reference or make findings tied to §45a-650(h) factors.	The court relied on the statutory factors and the weight of admissible evidence supporting the defendant.	Court reasonably applied the statutory factors and the record supports the result.
Whether Margenot's guardian ad litem report could be considered	The report contained hearsay and a conclusion on the ultimate issue and was not properly admissible.	The report was reviewed; even if not admitted, it did not alter the outcome and was cumulative.	Margenot's report could not be used for substantive purposes; any reliance did not prejudice substantial rights.

Gross v. Rell, 304 Conn. 234 (2012) (capacity of conserved persons; focus on expressed preferences)
Kortner v. Martise, 312 Conn. 1 (2014) (legislative history and scope of P.A. 07-116 conservatorship reforms)
Lesnewski v. Redvers, 276 Conn. 526 (2005) (pre-07-116 best interests framework and conservatorship rights)
Falvey v. Zurolo, 130 Conn. App. 243 (2011) (appeals regarding § 45a-650(h) factors and conservatorships)
Cottrell v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 175 Conn. 257 (1978) (disability, guardianship, and best interests principles)
Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (2003) (standard of review and factual support in judgments)
Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003) (guardian ad litem reports; use for non-substantive review)