194 A.3d 1174
Vt.2018Background
- Michele Boulet (petitioner) filed to modify the guardianship of C.H., a developmentally disabled adult whose public guardian (DAIL) was appointed after a family guardian was removed for exploitation.
- Boulet alleged long-standing personal ties to C.H. (godmother, known since birth, frequent contact) and concern that DAIL’s decisions were not in C.H.’s best interests.
- C.H., through counsel, moved to dismiss Boulet’s petition for lack of standing; the trial court granted dismissal without an evidentiary hearing.
- Vermont statutes permit modification or termination petitions by the Commissioner, the person with developmental disabilities, or “any interested person,” defined as a “responsible adult who has a direct interest” in the person.
- The Supreme Court framed the sole issue as whether Boulet meets the statutory definition of an "interested person" (i.e., has standing), not the merits of guardianship modification.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding the trial court applied an overly narrow test and that standing turns on whether the petitioner has immediate, personal knowledge sufficient to present testimony/evidence about the ward’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boulet has statutory standing as an "interested person" to petition to modify C.H.’s guardianship | Boulet: her lifelong, personal relationship and knowledge of C.H.’s welfare (godmother, frequent contact, longtime family friend) suffices to show a direct interest and standing | C.H.: Boulet lacks standing because she has no ongoing relationship or sufficient immediacy to be an "interested person" under 18 V.S.A. § 9302(4) | Court: "Interested person/direct interest" means a responsible adult with immediate/personal knowledge able to provide testimony or evidence about the ward’s welfare; facts here were inconclusive, so remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine standing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barnhart, 859 N.W.2d 856 (Neb. 2015) (standing requires attentiveness to the ward’s welfare and ability to present personal testimony/evidence)
- In re Conservatorship of Kloss, 109 P.3d 205 (Mont. 2005) (a petitioner with knowledge of rapid depletion of estate had standing to protect welfare)
- Guardianship of B.V.G., 52 N.E.3d 988 (Mass. 2016) (interpreting "interested person" as one interested in the incapacitated person’s welfare and able to advocate for best interests)
- Inman v. Pallito, 87 A.3d 449 (Vt. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal; treat factual allegations of nonmovant as true)