202 A.3d 532
Me.2019Background
- Patricia S., an incapacitated adult, required appointment of a guardian; her adult sons Michael and Peter Zani (residing in California) petitioned to be co-guardians.
- The Department of Health and Human Services initially filed a petition nominating the stepson and secured a temporary guardian; that nomination was later withdrawn.
- Michael and Peter had been largely estranged from their mother; the mother instead had daily caregivers Karin Beaster (geriatric social work background) and Nancy Carter (in-home caregiver) who were trusted by her and testified they were willing to serve.
- Beaster and Carter had not filed petitions, guardianship plans, or written acceptances before the contested hearing; after the hearing the court directed them to file those materials and they did so two weeks later.
- The Probate Court appointed Beaster and Carter as co-guardians, finding their appointment in the mother’s best interest; the Zanis appealed, arguing procedural defects, improper denial of children’s statutory priority, and error in the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zani) | Defendant's Argument (Beaster/Carter/Dept.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may appoint a person who did not file a petition/plan/acceptance before the hearing | Court erred by appointing Beaster and Carter who failed to comply with statutory pre-filing requirements (18-A M.R.S. § 5-303) | Section 5-311(a) allows appointment of “any competent person,” so appointment without prior formal petition is permissible | Vacated: court may not appoint someone who failed to satisfy the pretrial filing requirements; remand for further proceedings so parties can address the post-trial plan |
| Whether adult children have statutory priority for appointment (18-A M.R.S. § 5-311(b)) | Zanis argued as adult children they had priority and the court should have appointed them | The statute lists priorities but makes them subject to the court’s best-interest determination | Court did not err as a matter of law in declining to appoint children if someone else’s appointment serves the incapacitated person’s best interest; priority is subordinate to best-interest finding |
| Whether appointment of Beaster and Carter was in mother’s best interest | Zanis contended appointment of strangers/less-involved persons was not in mother’s best interest | Beaster and Carter were daily caregivers trusted by the mother and proposed to meet her needs | The appellate court did not decide the sufficiency of the best-interest record because it vacated based on procedural error and remanded for additional proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. E. Me. Med. Ctr., 193 A.3d 157 (Me. 2018) (appointment of a guardian implicates fundamental liberty interests)
- Guardianship of Thayer, 136 A.3d 349 (Me. 2016) (statutory construction reviewed de novo; interpret provisions in context)
- Guardianship of Hughes, 715 A.2d 919 (Me. 1998) (procedural safeguards in guardianship proceedings)
- Guardianship of Helen F., 60 A.3d 786 (Me. 2013) (appointment affects fundamental liberties; court must balance autonomy and protection)
- Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898 (Me. 1995) (full guardianship requires careful consideration of prospective ward’s needs)