In Re: R.M., An Alleged Protected Person
16-0200
| W. Va. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Mother (F.M.) petitioned for guardianship of adult daughter R.M., who has Down’s Syndrome and turned 18 in 2015; an attorney was appointed to represent R.M. under the Guardianship and Conservatorship Act.
- Mental hygiene commissioner held hearings, found R.M. is a protected person, and recommended appointment of both parents as co-guardians after finding each suitable.
- Father (A.H.) did not file a formal guardianship petition but stated his desire to be appointed; he underwent and passed a criminal background check ordered by the commissioner.
- Mother objected to the commissioner’s recommendation of co-guardianship; circuit court held a hearing and rejected co-guardianship.
- Circuit court appointed mother sole guardian, reasoning that (a) father hadn’t filed the required petition (jurisdictional issue) and (b) co-guardianship would be impractical and risk entanglement with the parents’ divorce/domestic relations issues, thus not in R.M.’s best interests.
- Father appealed pro se; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, applying deferential review and finding no abuse of discretion in denying co-guardianship on best-interests grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father was eligible for appointment as co-guardian despite not filing a petition | Father argued his stated intent was sufficient and he should be appointed co-guardian | Mother argued co-guardianship was impractical given estrangement and pending divorce; circuit court raised statutory filing requirement | Court assumed arguendo father was eligible but affirmed appointment of mother as sole guardian on best-interests grounds |
| Whether co-guardianship would serve the protected person’s best interests | Father argued record did not show inability to cooperate and mother is already a suitable guardian | Mother argued imminent divorce and estrangement risk turning guardianship into a tool in domestic relations disputes | Court found co-guardianship impractical given impending divorce/domestic conflict and affirmed sole guardianship as within discretion |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion in rejecting the mental hygiene commissioner’s recommendation | Father contended the court misapplied facts and did not properly consider evidence | Mother and court pointed to pleadings, file, and risk of entanglement with divorce as adequate reasons to reject recommendation | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found no abuse; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the presiding judge was disqualified for conflict of interest | Father asserted conflict but did not follow Trial Court Rule 17.01 procedures | Mother noted procedural deficiency; court declined to address on appeal due to failure to seek disqualification below | Court declined to reach disqualification claim because father failed to file required motion below |
Key Cases Cited
- In Re Robinette, 218 W.Va. 186, 624 S.E.2d 533 (2005) (upholding discretion to deny co-guardian where strained relationship and existing guardian’s competence supported denial)
- Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (issues of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)