in the Guardianship of James E. Fairley, 20-0328

Dissent by Justice John P. Devine in the Texas Supreme Court's review of the guardianship of James E. Fairley.
Texas Estates Code requires a proposed ward be personally served by a sheriff, constable, or a disinterested person competent to swear service occurred.
In Fairley’s case, no such person personally served him; his court‑appointed attorney ad litem did not object to the petitioner’s failure to follow the statutory service rules.
The Court’s majority concluded the ad litem’s inaction amounted to a general appearance that waived the statutory service defect.
Devine argues the statutory service requirement is a heightened, jurisdictional protection for vulnerable proposed wards and cannot be waived by an attorney ad litem’s silence.
He warns that permitting such waiver undermines legislative safeguards and risks exposing wards to exploitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an attorney ad litem’s failure to object constitutes a general appearance that waives statutory personal‑service requirements	Petitioner: ad litem’s inaction = general appearance; defect waived	Fairley: statutory service is mandatory; ad litem cannot waive jurisdictional protections	Majority: waiver by general appearance; Dissent: would require strict compliance and hold jurisdiction lacking
Whether strict compliance with the Legislature’s heightened service rules is required beyond mere actual notice	Petitioner: technical defects excused if notice/effective appearance occurs	Fairley: Legislature intended extra protections; strict compliance necessary to protect wards	Majority: tolerates technical defects in light of appearance; Dissent: strict compliance required to preserve protections

In re Thetford, 574 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2019) (guards identify wards as especially vulnerable)
Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (U.S. 1948) (purpose of guardianship is protection of incapacitated persons)
In re Guardianship of Erickson, 208 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (proposed ward may not waive jurisdictional procedures)
Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1983) (statutes that eliminate fundamental rights may violate due process)
Spanton v. Bellah, 612 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2020) (Texas courts require strict compliance with service authorizations)
In re D.T., 625 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2021) (Legislature may afford procedural protections beyond constitutional minima)