Guardianship of B.V.G.
474 Mass. 315
Mass.2016Background
- B.V.G., born 1993, has intellectual disabilities; her father obtained sole custody as a minor and was appointed temporary guardian after she turned 18.
- Father restricted B.V.G.'s contact with maternal relatives, including her maternal grandfather, despite earlier close relationship.
- Temporary guardianship orders allowed limited contact with mother and authorized narrow email contact between grandfather and B.V.G., but practical barriers and father's restrictions limited communication.
- Grandfather filed a motion to intervene under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 seeking to limit the proposed permanent guardianship under G. L. c. 190B, § 5-306(c), arguing he is an "interested person" who can advocate for B.V.G.'s interest in contact.
- Probate judge denied intervention for lack of standing as an "interested person;" Appeals Court affirmed on different grounds; Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and stayed proceedings.
- SJC held the grandfather is an "interested person" under § 5-306(c) (a person interested in the incapacitated person's welfare) and reversed the denial of intervention, remanding for further proceedings on the pending permanent guardianship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grandfather) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-fiduciary family member may be an "interested person" under G. L. c. 190B, § 5-306(c) to seek limiting a guardianship | § 5-306(c) permits any person interested in the incapacitated person's welfare to petition to limit guardianship; grandfather has demonstrated ongoing concern and the ward's desire for contact | "Interested person" refers to financial or legal stake (per § 1-201 enumerations); grandfather lacks statutory standing | SJC: "interested person" includes persons interested in the incapacitated person's welfare; grandfather has standing to intervene as of right under § 5-306(c) |
| Whether an "interested person" must show inadequate representation by the ward's counsel or guardian ad litem before intervening | No; statute grants an independent, unconditional right to petition to limit a guardianship | Intervention unnecessary if ward already represented; adequate representation defeats need to intervene | SJC: No such precondition; § 5-306(c) unambiguously allows an interested person to petition regardless of other representation |
| Whether intervention should be by separate petition or by intervention in pending guardianship | Grandfather may intervene as of right in pending permanent guardianship under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(a) once deemed an "interested person" | Father contended grandfather should file a separate petition or has no right to intervene in his pending petition | SJC: Once found an "interested person," the movant is entitled to intervene as of right in the pending proceeding to seek limitation |
| Scope of relief available to an intervenor seeking to limit guardianship | Grandfather may seek limitation narrowly (e.g., preserve contact rights) consistent with statute's purpose to maximize ward autonomy | Father argued guardian's authority permits restricting associations absent court limitation | SJC: Intervenor may seek limitation under § 5-306(c); court must consider ward's best interests and statutory preference for least-restrictive orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Registration in Medicine v. Doe, 457 Mass. 738 (party concessions and exhibits may establish facts without evidentiary hearing)
- Fremont Inv. & Loan v. Commonwealth, 459 Mass. 209 (review standard for intervention: factual findings for clear error; legal question de novo)
- Water Department of Fairhaven v. Department of Environmental Protection, 455 Mass. 740 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Matter of McKnight, 406 Mass. 787 (guardianship proceedings must effectuate best interests of incapacitated person)
- Guardianship of Anthony, 402 Mass. 723 (same principle regarding guardianship purpose)
- King v. Dolan, 255 Mass. 236 (historical emphasis on guardianship serving ward's interests)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Bowen, 461 Mass. 113 (construe terms in light of statutory context and purpose)
- Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 443 Mass. 837 (term meaning should harmonize with surrounding statutory sections)
- Guardianship of Roe, 383 Mass. 415 (caution against unnecessary guardianship; consider liberty interests)
- Guardianship of Doe, 411 Mass. 512 (incompetence findings do not eliminate dignity and autonomous values)
- Matter of Moe, 385 Mass. 555 (similar emphasis on autonomy in guardianship context)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental authority over children's associations referenced by father; court noted but did not adopt as limiting in guardianship context)