Guardianship and Conservatorship of M.E.
2017 ND 121
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In 2014 M.E. was placed under guardianship and conservatorship after a financial scam, suicide attempt, medication overdose, and findings of memory impairment and poor medication compliance; her children N.P. and M.N. were appointed co-guardians/conservators.
- M.E. unsuccessfully sought restoration of capacity in 2015; the guardianship was upheld on appeal.
- In June 2016 M.E. again petitioned to be restored to capacity; the court appointed a visitor whose report recommended some guardianship remain but suggested a less restrictive setting might be possible with services.
- M.E. proposed moving to an apartment, asserted she could manage medications with community services, and offered to execute a durable power of attorney; the court asked for a specific formal plan and continued the hearing.
- At the August 2016 hearing M.E. provided limited planning details; the court found she failed to present a workable alternative plan and denied restoration, concluding she still needed a guardian to protect her health and safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.E.) | Defendant's Argument (Guardians) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to terminate guardianship? | M.E.: guardians must prove she remains incapacitated; her psychologist notes suffice | Guardians: implied that ward must show she is no longer incapacitated | Court: Ward must first make a prima facie showing; if met, burden shifts to guardian to prove incapacity by clear and convincing evidence |
| Was the evidence sufficient to establish M.E. is no longer incapacitated? | M.E.: psychologist progress notes showing mild impairment and no cognitive deficit prove capacity | Guardians: visitor’s report and prior findings show lack of insight/judgment and risk of scams/medication noncompliance | Held: M.E. failed to make a prima facie case; denial affirmed |
| Did court err by not ordering least-restrictive alternative? | M.E.: she proposed apartment plan and community medication help; court should have required guardians to disprove that plan | Guardians: M.E.’s plan lacked specifics and safeguards against scams/medication problems | Held: Court correctly required M.E. to present a specific workable plan and found she did not; no error in refusing less-restrictive alternative |
| Were visitor and psychologist reports sufficient to decide restoration? | M.E.: psychologist notes were favorable and undermined need for guardianship | Guardians: visitor’s observations showed ongoing lack of insight and risk | Held: Combined reports were insufficient to meet M.E.’s burden; failure to present additional evidence justified denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of M.E., 871 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 2015) (prior appeal affirming guardianship and summarizing ward’s condition)
- In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 694 N.W.2d 212 (N.D. 2005) (party proposing restrictive placement must justify least-restrictive alternative; burden-shifting framework)
- Hedin v. Hedin, 528 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 1995) (ward must make prima facie showing to terminate guardianship; then guardian must prove incompetency by clear and convincing evidence)
- Sanders, 773 P.2d 1241 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (patient seeking termination of treatment guardianship must make prima facie showing of capacity)
- O’Neill v. O’Neill, 619 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 2000) (description of prima facie case and burden-shifting principles)