In re Guardianship of Smith
2014 Ohio 2119
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- James D. Smith, age 29, lives with his parents; has IQ ~58 and diagnoses including possible autism, selective mutism, PDD-NOS, and anxiety disorder. He is largely nonverbal except with his mother, isolates socially, and has regressed since childhood.
- Since 1998 James has sent threatening communications to various people; in 2012 he faced criminal charges, was hospitalized, found not competent to stand trial, and referred to probate for guardianship.
- Parents (Delores and Douglas Smith) applied to be guardians of James' person and estate; Advocacy and Protective Services, Inc. (APSI) separately applied to be guardian of his person. A comprehensive evaluation and expert report were admitted at the guardianship hearing.
- Evaluations reported that James is isolated, functioning below potential, resists outside services, exhibits compulsive/controlling behaviors (e.g., demanding long car rides), has hygiene and incontinence issues, and that parents have at times blocked or not followed through with outside services.
- The probate court appointed APSI as guardian of James’ person, finding parents’ love impaired their ability to make necessary hard decisions and that a neutral third party would better secure James’ welfare. Parents appealed, arguing they should have been appointed and that less restrictive alternatives were not considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by appointing a nonfamily guardian instead of the parents | Smiths: Parents are best suited, know James’ needs, and James wants to remain at home | APSI: Neutral third party can obtain services parents have resisted and can make needed tough decisions | Court: No error — probate court did not abuse discretion; best interest favors APSI given parents’ failure to engage services and inability to impose needed structure |
| Whether the probate court failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to full guardianship | Smiths: Court should have considered in-home assistance or education/support for parents | APSI/State: No evidence of viable less-restrictive alternatives was presented at hearing | Court: No error — R.C. requires consideration only if evidence is introduced; none was presented |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Spangler, 126 Ohio St.3d 339, 2010-Ohio-2471 (explaining the probate court is the superior guardian and appointed guardians serve as officers of the court)
- In re Estate of Bednarczuk, 80 Ohio App.3d 548 (12th Dist. 1992) (probate courts must act in the ward's best interest in guardianship matters)