In re Guardianship of Thomas
2016 Ohio 7793
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephanie Thomas, guardian of her sister Jacqueline, faced a court-initiated guardianship review after a December 31, 2015 complaint from a Southeast, Inc. employee raising concerns that Stephanie failed to bring Jacqueline for needed medication and that Stephanie had recent mental-health issues.
- A probate court investigator spoke with Stephanie and reported disorganized, tangential thinking; he recommended a guardianship-review hearing to assess Stephanie's ability to serve.
- A magistrate held a hearing on February 29, 2016 (Southeast did not appear) and concluded Stephanie lacked the capacity to protect and control a paranoid-schizophrenic ward; he recommended removal under R.C. 2111.13(A)(1).
- Stephanie filed objections to the magistrate’s decision and appealed the probate court’s April 15, 2016 entry adopting the magistrate’s decision and removing her as guardian; she raised multiple errors (14 assignments), challenging evidentiary bases, procedures, and alleged bias.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, found Stephanie had party status and standing to appeal, considered the objections, and affirmed the probate court’s removal of Stephanie as guardian; one judge dissented, expressing concern over reliance on an unsigned complaint from a provider and finding the record insufficiently clear and convincing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stephanie) | Defendant's Argument (Probate Court / Magistrate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Stephanie was a party affected by removal and may appeal | Probate court’s action removed her as guardian so she has appellate standing | Court: Stephanie had party status and standing to appeal; appeal not dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to remove guardian (clear and convincing) | Record lacks clear-and-convincing proof; testimony and documents show Stephanie provided care; complaint was hearsay/self-serving | Investigator, magistrate, and judge found Stephanie’s disorganized thinking and failure to ensure care for ward constituted clear-and-convincing evidence of inability to serve | Court: Overruled assignments of error; affirmed removal as in ward’s best interest (majority) |
| Procedural review requirements after objections (Civ.R. 53) | Probate court failed to independently review and develop the record; magistrate relied on an unsigned complaint and incomplete evidence | Probate judge conducted a detailed review of the magistrate’s decision and adopted it after considering objections | Court: Probate judge adequately reviewed and properly adopted magistrate’s decision |
| Weight/admissibility of complaint from service provider | Complaint was unsigned, hearsay, and provider had potential financial interest; provider did not testify so reliance was improper | Court relied on investigator’s independent assessment (including direct interview with Stephanie) and hearing testimony regarding ward’s needs and guardian’s capacity | Court: Information in complaint and investigator’s findings were proper bases for proceeding; removal affirmed (dissent would have remanded) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St.3d 67 (2008) (standing principles in guardianship appeals; party status required to appeal)
- Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar's Sahara, 64 Ohio St.3d 24 (1992) (appeal generally permitted only by parties with a prejudiced interest)
- Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111 (1969) (guardianship proceedings are in rem; standing requirements explained)