In re Guardianship of Thomas
2016 Ohio 7793
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephanie Thomas was guardian of her sister Jacqueline; in late 2015 the probate court received an unsigned complaint from a Southeast, Inc. employee alleging Stephanie was not getting Jacqueline necessary medication and raised concerns about Stephanie's mental stability.
- A probate investigator interviewed Stephanie and the complainant, reported that Stephanie displayed tangential/flighty thinking, and recommended a guardianship-review hearing.
- A magistrate held a hearing on February 29, 2016 (Southeast did not appear), found Stephanie lacked the ability to make appropriate decisions for a paranoid schizophrenic ward, and recommended removal.
- Stephanie filed objections; the probate judge independently reviewed the record, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and removed Stephanie as guardian, suggesting the girls’ father could serve.
- Stephanie appealed pro se raising 14 assignments of error (procedural defects, reliance on allegedly irrelevant or hearsay evidence, and insufficiency of findings). The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Stephanie asserted she had party status and appealed removal | Appellee argued only parties may appeal guardianship orders | Court: Stephanie was a party (she had been guardian and was prejudiced by removal), so appeal not dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to remove guardian | Stephanie argued magistrate relied on irrelevant, invalid, and uncorroborated evidence and she competently cared for the ward | Probate court said investigator, hearing observations, and testimony showed Stephanie could not protect/control the ward; removal was in ward’s best interest | Court: No abuse of discretion; probate judge’s independent review supported removal; assignments of error overruled |
| Reliance on complaint/hearsay and procedural defects | Stephanie argued the unsigned/email complaint, hearsay, missing testimony/transcripts, and lack of subpoenaed witnesses made the proceeding unfair | Probate court relied on investigator’s report and hearing testimony (including observations of Stephanie’s thinking and ward’s behavior) and conducted required review after objections | Court: Probate judge properly reviewed magistrate decision; complained defects did not show reversible error |
| Applicable standard and statutory authority | Stephanie contended the court misapplied statutes and duties (e.g., ORC provisions and evidence of compliance) | Probate court applied guardianship authority and concluded it, as superior guardian, could remove guardian under the record presented | Court: Affirmed trial court’s application of guardianship authority and its factual findings under abuse-of-discretion standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2008) (standing to appeal in guardianship cases requires party status)
- Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar's Sahara, 64 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1992) (appeal lies to parties with a present prejudiced interest)
- In re Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111 (Ohio 1969) (guardianship review and standing principles)
- State v. Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (Ohio 1979) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (appellate review standard for factual findings)