Title: In re Guardianship of Helen F.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2013 ME 18 
Docket: 
Pen-12-276 
Argued: 
December 13, 2012 
Decided: 
February 12, 2013 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and 
JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
GUARDIANSHIP OF HELEN F. 
 
 
MEAD, J. 
 
[¶1]  Helen F. appeals from the judgment of the Penobscot County Probate 
Court (Woodcock, J.) adjudicating her to be incapacitated and appointing the 
Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) as her guardian and 
conservator.  We vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶2]  In March 2012, the Department filed joined petitions in the Penobscot 
County Probate Court seeking the appointment of a public guardian and 
conservator for Helen.  The court appointed an attorney to represent her and held a 
hearing on the joined petitions on May 10, 2012.  The hearing was not recorded.  
The court issued its order adjudicating Helen incapacitated and appointing the 
Department as Helen’s full public guardian and public conservator on 
May 11, 2012. 
 
2 
 
[¶3]  Helen appealed and filed a statement of the evidence pursuant to M.R. 
App. P. 5(d).  The Department objected to Helen’s statement as being incomplete 
and proposed additional facts.  The Probate Court reviewed the statements and 
approved both of them, but noted: “By my recollection, the statements contain 
mostly accurate information, but I do not recall the details of the case.” 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶4]  Fundamental personal liberty interests are at stake in guardianship 
proceedings.  Matter of Howes, 471 A.2d 689, 691 (Me. 1984) (“The appointment 
of a guardian for an incapacitated person affects the fundamental personal liberty 
of the prospective ward.”).  For Helen, these interests include losing her rights to 
care for herself, determine where she will live, make decisions regarding her 
medical care, and manage her assets.  The importance of these liberties cannot be 
overstated: “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the 
common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his 
own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and 
unquestionable authority of law.”  In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947, 950 (Me. 1987) 
(quoting Union Pacific Ry. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)).  Recognition of 
these fundamental rights in Howes led to the amendment of the probate code “so as 
to encourage the development of maximum self reliance and independence of the 
incapacitated person.”  Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898, 900-01 (Me. 1995) 
 
3 
(quoting 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-304(a) (Supp. 1994)).  When a guardianship order is 
appealed, the availability of an adequate record is essential because, absent an 
accurate record, meaningful appellate review is impossible. 
[¶5]  As was the case here, where a hearing is unrecorded, M.R. App. P. 5(d) 
permits parties to prepare a statement of the evidence and submit it to the trial 
court for approval.  See, e.g., State v. Milliken, 2010 ME 1, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 1152.  
Once approved, the statement is included in the record on appeal.  
M.R. App. P. 5(d).  The requirements of Rule 5(d) have not been met here because 
the statement of the evidence had not been approved by the Probate Court.  
Creating a Rule 5(d) record requires that the trial court review the statement of the 
evidence and remember the proceeding.  See Cates v. Donahue, 2007 ME 38, ¶ 2, 
916 A.2d 941 (noting that it was “good practice” for “[t]he court [to] review[] 
[appellant’s] statement of the evidence, ma[k]e some modifications and additions 
to it based on its recollection of the proceedings, and approve[] the statement as 
modified.”).  The court’s statement that it “do[es] not recall the details of the case” 
effectively invalidates the purported approval of the Rule 5(d) record.  
Accordingly, Helen’s case is before us without any acceptable record of the 
proceedings below. 
[¶6]  We have held that appellants have the burden to furnish an adequate 
record for consideration on appeal and, in the absence of a record, we will assume 
 
4 
that the record would have supported the trial court’s findings of fact.  See, e.g., 
Greaton v. Greaton, 2012 ME 17, ¶ 2, 36 A.3d 913; Town of Porter v. Blevens, 
2009 ME 48, ¶ 2, 970 A.2d 286; Clark v. Heald, 2009 ME 111, ¶ 2, 983 A.2d 406; 
Edwards v. Campbell, 2008 ME 173, ¶ 10, 960 A.2d 324. 
[¶7]  We have recognized an exception to this general rule, however, in 
situations “where transcripts are unavailable through no fault of the appellant.” 
Milliken, 2010 ME 1, ¶ 13, 985 A.2d 1152.  In State v. Dickinson, for example, we 
held that the defendant should be resentenced because the court reporter lost his 
notes of the sentencing hearing and was unable to transcribe the hearing.  
662 A.2d 202, 204 (Me. 1995).  Likewise, the trial court’s inability to remember 
Helen’s case, and Helen's corresponding inability to provide an adequate statement 
of the evidence pursuant to M.R. App. P. 5(d), is no fault of Helen’s.  We therefore 
vacate the judgment and remand for a de novo adjudication of Helen’s capacity. 
The entry is: 
Judgment vacated.  Remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
On the briefs: 
 
Audrey B. Braccio, Esq., Pelletier & Faircloth, Bangor, for appellant Helen 
F. 
 
William J. Schneider, Attorney General, and Katherine Greason, Asst. Atty. 
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of 
Health and Human Services 
 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Audrey B. Braccio, Esq., for appellant Helen F. 
 
Katherine Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Department of Health and 
Human Services 
 
 
 
Penobscot County Probate Court docket number 2012-193 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY