In re Guardianship of Thomas
2016 Ohio 7793
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephanie Thomas, guardian for her sister Jacqueline, was investigated after a report from Southeast, Inc. alleged Stephanie failed to get Jacqueline necessary medication and had herself been recently hospitalized for mental-health issues.
- A probate-court investigator interviewed Stephanie and the complainant; the investigator described Stephanie as tangential and recommended a guardian-review hearing.
- A magistrate held a hearing (Feb. 29, 2016) where the magistrate found Stephanie displayed flighty/tangential thinking and that Jacqueline presented as a very challenging ward; Southeast’s complainant did not testify.
- The magistrate issued a decision removing Stephanie as guardian under R.C. 2111.13 (guardian duties) and related authority; Stephanie filed objections.
- The probate judge independently reviewed the record, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and replaced Stephanie as guardian; Stephanie appealed pro se.
- The appellate court affirmed, rejecting 14 assigned errors; Judge Brunner dissented, finding the record did not contain clear-and-convincing evidence and criticizing reliance on an unsigned, nonappearing complainant and limited development of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stephanie) | Defendant's Argument (Probate Court/Others) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Stephanie is an aggrieved party because she was removed as guardian | Probate court position: appellant was a party and removal prejudiced her | Court: Stephanie had party status and standing; appeal not dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to remove guardian (clear and convincing) | Removal was based on irrelevant, biased, or hearsay evidence; testimony showed competency and adequate care | Magistrate/probate court: testimony and investigator’s observations showed Stephanie lacked capacity to control ward; best interest required removal | Court: affirmed removal — probate judge’s independent review found no error; dissent would have found abuse of discretion |
| Reliance on unsigned/unchallenged complaint and absent witness (Southeast) | Complaint was hearsay, self‑serving, and the complainant did not testify; probate court relied improperly on it | Probate court: investigator spoke with complainant and guardian; investigator’s observations and hearing evidence supported concerns | Court: rejected this as reversible error given judge’s independent review; dissent criticized reliance on the complaint and absence of Southeast testimony |
| Proper procedural review of magistrate findings (Civ.R. 53) | Stephanie contended objections required an expanded hearing and that record/transcript issues hampered review | Probate court: conducted independent review and issued a detailed judgment adopting magistrate’s decision | Court: overruled objections and upheld probate judge’s adoption of magistrate’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St.3d 67 (2008) (standing requirements to appeal in guardianship proceedings)
- Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar's Sahara, 64 Ohio St.3d 24 (1992) (appeal lies only to parties prejudiced by judgment)
- Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111 (1969) (guardianship proceedings are in rem and standing is limited)
- State v. Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (1979) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Barbeck v. Twinsburg Twp., 73 Ohio App.3d 587 (1992) (appellate review of trial-court evidentiary discretion)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (trial-court factual findings will not be disturbed unless unreasonable)
- S.S. Kresge Co. v. Trester, 123 Ohio St. 383 (1931) (standard that findings should not be arbitrary or unconscionable)