In re Guardianship of Shear, 2017 Ohio 8169

Marsha L. Shear, under a Cuyahoga County probate guardianship since 2000, filed a motion (Oct. 25, 2016) to terminate the guardianship.
A magistrate held a hearing (Nov. 14, 2016); both Ms. Shear and her brother/guardian, Howard Shear, attended.
Two psychiatric expert evaluations (Dec. 2015 by Dr. Gretchen Gardner; Nov. 9, 2016 by Dr. John Sanitato) recommended continued guardianship.
The guardian testified Ms. Shear’s condition declined, requiring long-term care and ongoing treatment.
Ms. Shear testified but was largely incoherent, presented spreadsheets and allegations (fraud, identity theft), and produced no medical or other evidence rebutting experts.
Magistrate recommended continuation; trial court adopted the recommendation, finding Ms. Shear failed to present "satisfactory proof" under R.C. 2111.47. Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guardianship should be terminated	Shear: guardianship is no longer necessary; presented billing spreadsheets and contested the process	Guardian: two expert evaluations and testimony show serious mental disorders requiring ongoing guardianship	Denied — Shear failed to produce "satisfactory proof" to rebut presumption of continued incompetence; guardianship continues
Burden and standard to terminate guardianship	Shear: (implied) bears burden to prove necessity no longer exists	Guardian: presumption of continued incompetence stands; experts satisfy continuing need unless rebutted	Court: presumption is rebuttable but Shear did not counterbalance it; court did not abuse discretion

In re Estate of Bednarczuk, 80 Ohio App.3d 548, 609 N.E.2d 1310 (12th Dist. 1992) (probate court has broad discretion in guardianship matters)
In re Breece, 173 Ohio St. 542, 184 N.E.2d 386 (Ohio 1962) (defining "satisfactory proof" needed to terminate guardianship and obligating court to terminate when burden met)