In re Guardianship of Thomas
2016 Ohio 7793
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Probate court received an unsigned/service-provider complaint (Dec. 31, 2015; filed Jan. 15, 2016) alleging guardian Stephanie Thomas failed to get her sister Jacqueline necessary medication and had recent psychiatric issues; complainant (Southeast, Inc.) did not testify at hearing.
- Court investigator spoke with Stephanie and reported tangential, disorganized thinking; investigator requested a guardianship-review hearing.
- Magistrate held an evidentiary hearing (Feb. 29, 2016) with appearances by Stephanie and the ward; magistrate found Stephanie displayed flighty/tangential reasoning and concluded she lacked capacity to protect/control the ward.
- Magistrate recommended removal of Stephanie as guardian; Stephanie filed objections and appealed after the probate judge independently reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s decision (Apr. 15, 2016).
- This appeal challenges the removal on multiple grounds (14 assignments of error), including alleged reliance on irrelevant/biased evidence, insufficiency of proof, procedural defects under Civ.R. 53, and improper application of guardianship statutes.
- The appellate majority affirmed removal; one judge dissented, concluding the record did not contain clear-and-convincing evidence and criticizing the proceeding’s reliance on an unsigned, potentially self-interested complaint that never testified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stephanie) | Defendant's Argument (Probate Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal removal | Stephanie is a prejudiced party because she was removed as guardian | Probate court and majority: Stephanie was a party and had standing to appeal removal | Held: Stephanie had standing; appeal not dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to remove guardian | Removal was based on hearsay, irrelevant rumors, and insufficient/impermissible evidence; family witnesses supported Stephanie | Magistrate/probate court: testimony and investigator observations showed Stephanie’s tangential thinking and inability to make decisions for a paranoid schizophrenic ward; removal in ward’s best interest | Held: No abuse of discretion; probate court’s adoption of magistrate supported removal (clear-and-convincing standard met) |
| Procedural adequacy (Civ.R. 53 independent review, record/transcript) | Objections noted missing transcript in trial court record and alleged improper reliance on complaint disposition and deposition-like material | Probate court independently reviewed magistrate’s decision and adopted it with a detailed entry; appellate record limitations required accepting magistrate’s factual findings | Held: Procedural handling did not require reversal; objections overruled |
| Weight/admissibility of complainant’s report (Southeast) | The unsigned/emailed complaint was hearsay and from a provider with potential financial interest; provider did not testify, so relying on it was improper | Court treated the complaint as the trigger for investigation; investigator and hearing testimony (including observations of Stephanie and ward behavior) supplied evidentiary support beyond the complaint | Held: Majority found no reversible error in the court’s reliance on the complaint and investigator/magistrate findings; dissent would have required further development and live testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2008) (standing rules for appeals in guardianship proceedings)
- Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar's Sahara, 64 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1992) (appellate standing requires a prejudiced party)
- Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111 (Ohio 1969) (guardianship proceedings are in rem; standing standards explained)
- State v. Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (Ohio 1979) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Barbeck v. Twinsburg Twp., 73 Ohio App.3d 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (trial court evidentiary discretion and reversal standard)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (appellate review standard for trial court findings)
- S.S. Kresge Co. v. Trester, 123 Ohio St. 383 (Ohio 1931) (standard that trial-court findings will not be disturbed unless unreasonable)