NO. 07-07 -010 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER31, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MAT T ER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LOYCE JU AN ITA PAR KER , AN IN CA PAC ITATED PER SON

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 46 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF W IL BA RG ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 24, 438 ; HON. DAN M IKE BI RD, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPINIO N Loy ce Juani ta Par ker appeal s the tr ial cour t’ s appoi ntment of he r dau ght e r Li nda Jones as the per manent g uardia n of he r person and est ate. On ap peal , Pa rk er ch all eng es the t ri al cour

t’ s e x er ci se of pers onal j ur is dicti on, i ts findi ng that she w as an i ncapa ci tated person, i ts appoi ntment of a g uardia n w it h full rather than l imi ted a uthor ity , i ts appoi ntment of Jone s as her guardian , and its creatio n of a guardiansh ip of

her esta te. W e w ill af

f irm the j udg ment.2 Back g ro und Parker w as bo rn March 2, 191 9, an d w ith little interrup tion liv ed in Oklah om a un til 2006. She and her husba nd of 68 y ears, Al v in Edw ard Par ker , Sr ., made the ir home on a fa rm n e a r W a u ri k a , O k la h o m a . T h e y we re p a re n t s o f f ive ch il d re n . F o u r r e m a in e d a li ve at th e time of the guardian ship hearing: Lind a Jone s, Polly W ard, Debra Boring, and Alv in Edward Parker, Jr. ( E d wa rd Parker). Jones a nd Bo ring liv e in Verno n, T exas, w hile Edw ard Par ker

and W ard li v e in Okl ahoma. Other re lat iv es li v e in Okl ahoma and Ver non. Par ker ’s hus band di ed unex p e ct e d lyi n M ay 2006. By

then , Pa rk er

no l ong er cook ed and the famil y farmhous e w as, ac cord in g t o W a rd , “ not l iv abl e.” After her husb and ’s fu nera l, Parker brief ly stayed w ith W ard an d w ith Parke r’s g rand s o n in Okl ahoma. On J une 1 1 , Pa rker w ent t o J ones’ s h ome i n Ver non. On June 23, P ar ker mov ed to the Al ter ra Ste rl ing H ouse, an a ss is ted li v ing cent er in Ver non. Edw ard Par ker is trustee o f

a trust create d by Parker an d he r husba nd p rov iding fo r man agem entof their asset s. Jo nes te stif ied th at, a s trustee , Edward Parker app rov ed p aymen t for his mot her’s care at Al ter ra . Bor ing sp ent tw o day s d ecorati ng Par ker ’s room and hel ped her mother send e- mail s n oti fyi ng the family of P ar ker ’s new address . One o f the mess ag es re por ted Parker w as forgetf ul and “a li ttle lon ely.” L a t e r t h a ts u m m e r

P a r k e r wa s h o s p it a li ze d fo r a b o u tt e n d a ys in O k la h o m a Ci t y. W hil e hos pit ali z ed, s he w as ev alu ated by a ps y chi atr is t ident ified at tr ial onl y as “ Dr . D ash. ” Dr . D ash did not appear l iv e or by depos it ion at tr ial , butac cordin g to the t est imony of Jone s a nd W ard, i t w as t he o pi ni on o f D r . D as h th atP ar k er h ad d em en ti a or

“ mi ld3

dementi a,” co uld not cook or dr iv e, ne eded as si sta nce w it h medi cat ion , req uired 24- hour care, an d ne ede d a guardian . W ard suggested Jo nes p ursue a guardi ansh ip of their mother

. During N ovemb er, W ichita Falls psychiatrist Brian W ieck, M.D., examine d Parke r. In a letter

address ed to the W il bar gerC o unty j udg e, D r. W iec k o pin ed th at P ar ker w as “i ncapa ci tated .” The l etter di d notdefine the ter m. D r. W iec k fur ther opi ned t hat P ar ker s u f fe re d d e m e n t ia a n d h a d “s ig n if ic a n tco gn it ive d e f ic it s in c lu d in g p o o r m e m o ry, dis or ien tati on, a nd c onfusio n.” H e noted Par ker ex per ien ced ti me di sor ien tati on, w as not famili ar w it h her medic ati ons, could not desc ri be her f ina nci al si tuati on, and w as unabl e to re cal l re centmeal s. In his es ti mati on, P ar ker ’s dementi a w as prog re ss iv e. Jones made ap pli cat ion for a ppoi ntment as per manent g uardia n of the person and esta te of Pa rke r in a pleadin g f iled Decem ber 1, 2 006 . Attach ed was the lette r of Dr. W iec k. The c ounty

co urt app oin ted a n att or ney ad li tem for

Park er and he ans w ered on her behal f byg eneral deni al. On Dece mb er 16, wi tho ut prior not ice to Jon es, Ed w ard Parker alon g w ith Jon es’s nephew and a fri end of t he family re mov ed Par ker from Al ter ra and pla ced her at Hea rt lan d Pl az a, an as si ste d l iv ing faci li ty i n D uncan , O kl ahoma. Edw ard Par ke r f ile d a contes t of Jone s’s g uard iansh ip app lication a nd th e case w as transf erred to district court. Edward P a r k e r a lso in it ia te d Ok la h o m a p ro ce e d in gs fo r a gua rd ia n sh ip o f Pa rke r. Fo llo wing a Janua ry 8, 2007, hear ing the Tex as cour t app oin ted J ones temporar y g uardia n of her mo the r. At the he aring, W ard test if ied of the ne ed for a tem pora ry g uard ian. T he co urt4

ordered Edw ard Par ker to immedi atel y

retur n hi s mother

to Tex as but h is co unsel noti fied the c our t t hat P ar ker

w oul d notv olu ntar il y

retur n to Tex as. Al thoug h Par ker ’s att or ney ad l it em rem a in e d in pl ace, att or ney M atthe w

M alo ne appeared on her

behal f bynoti ce filed F ebr uar y 2. Mal one subse q uentl y f il ed a motio n for cont inu ance, a mot ion to dis mis s J ones’ s a ppl ic ati o n , and an a mended ans w er , and prosec uted a c ontes t of the g uardia nshi p and appoi ntment o f J o n es. O n F ebr uar

y 8, Edw ard Park er

non-s uit ed his cont estof the proceed ing

. In a ple adi ng f il ed on Ma rc h 6, the day of trial, W ard and Boring contest ed th e ap plication for a perm ane nt guardian ship and al ter nati v ely

so ug ht ap poi ntment as g uardia n of thei r mother ’s person and es tate. On M ar ch 6, t he cour

t heard the pendi ng appl ic ati ons and c ontes ts. Pa rk er di d not a p p e ar for the h earing but th e cou rt fo und her person al app eara nce u nne ce s s a ry. Fol low ing the cl ose of ev ide nce, the cour t re ndered jud g ment appoi nti ng Jo nes g uardia n of the person and es tate of Park er , w it h fu ll gua rd ia n shi p aut hor ity . By noti ce filed by Ma lon e, P ar ker

appeal ed. Di sc uss ion In he r firs t i ss ue, P ar ker co ntends sh e w as not s ubj ectto the p ersonal j ur is dicti on of the tr ial co urt.The record s uppl ies no reason abl e bas is su ppor ti ng a s peci al appearance. By the 1 ti me Jon es filed her

appl ic ati on, Par ker had re si ded at Al ter ra almos t si x months , Bo ri ng had not ified extended family thatPar ker ’s address w as a s peci fic a par tment at A lt er ra , t he app lication a lleged Alterra w as Parke r’s reside nce, and P a rk e r was serv ed wi th proce ss at A lt er ra . 5 Parker initially app eare d by g ene ral denia l and did not m ake a special ap pea rance chal len g ing the tr ial co urt’ s e x er ci se of pers onal j ur is dicti on. F oll ow ing Mal one’ s entr y on 1 her be half

she f iled a m otion for contin uan ce an d mo ti on in limin e to dism iss Jones’s appl ic ati on. Nei ther

w ere made s ubj ectto a c hal len g e of the tr ial cou rt ’s ex er ci se of personal j ur is dicti on. On F ebr uar y 28, ov er

fiftyday s a fter J ones’ s a ppoi ntment as Par ker ’s temporar

y g uardia n, P ar ker

fil ed an unsw or n amended an sw er w hic h inter alia all eg ed th e tr ial co urt lac ked personal jur is dicti on becaus e she w as not a Tex as re si dent. The ex is tenc e or

not of p e rso n a l jur is dicti on i s a q uest ion of law

. BMC Software Bel giu m , N.V. v. Ma rchand, 83 S. W .3d 7 89, 7 94 ( Tex . 200 2)

. Rul e 120a all ow s a par ty to challen ge a court’s exerci se of person al ju ri sdiction bymakin g a spe cial app eara nce th ro u gh a sworn m o ti o n f ile d p rio r to a m o ti o n to tr a n sfe r ven u e o r a n y o th e r p le a , p le a d in g, or moti on. Tex . R. Ci v . P. 120a(1)

. The ru le is a l imi ted e x cept ion to the g eneral ru le that a partysubj e c t s i t s e l f t o a T e x a s c o u rt ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n b y m a k i n g a n a p p e a ra n c e fo r a ny pur pose. Kawasak

i Steel C or p. v . M idd leton, 699 S.W .2d 199, 20 1 ( Tex . 198 5)

. A par ty mayw aiv e, ho w ev er , any obj ect ion it mig ht other w is e hav e to a c our

t' s e x er ci se of pers onal jur is dicti on ov er

i t. Bur g er Ki ng C or p. v . R udzewicz

, 471 U .S. 462, 472 n. 14, 1 05 S. Ct

. 2174, 2182 n. 14, 8 5 L.E d.2d 528 ( 1985) ; Shapol sk y v . Br ewton, 56 S. W .3d 1 20, 1 40 (T e x .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, pet. deni ed) , dis appr oved on ot

her gr ounds by Mi chi ana Ea sy

Li vi n’ C ountr y, Inc . v . Holten , 168 S.W .3d 777 , 788 -89 (Te x . 200 5). Th us,6

a par ty w aiv es the r ig ht t o c ontes t personal j uris d ic ti on ov er i t w hen i t mak es a g eneral app eara nce b efore the court. Any answ er or othe r appe aran ce be for e judgmen t is a g eneral appearance unl ess the party made a “s peci al appearance” for t he pur pose of chall eng ing the tr ial co urt’ s j ur is dicti on. Tex . R . C iv . P. 120a; Shapol sk y, 56 S. W .3d a t 140. Par ker

made a g eneral appearance throug h her or ig inal a n swer , and throug h her lat er moti on to di smi ss Jo nes’ s a ppl ic ati on. Addi ti onal ly , it is undi sput ed that Par ker w as ser v ed w it h ci tati on in W ilb a rg er Cou nty

. The g is t of

Park er ’s jur is dicti onal complai nt is answ ered bythe cas e l aw hol din g that “[ a]n a ss erti on of personal j ur is dicti on based on physi cal presenc e al one c onst it utes due process.” Stal

lwor th v . St all wort h, 201 S. W .3d 3 38, 3 44 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2006, no pet .) ( citi ng Bur nhamv. Super

. C our t, 495 U .S. 604, 619, 110 S.Ct . 210 5, 21 15, 1 09 L.Ed. 2d 631 (1 990) ( plu ra li ty op.) ( “j ur is dicti on bas ed on phy si cal presenc e al one cons ti tutes due proces s becau se it is one of t he cont inu ing tradi ti ons of our leg al sy ste m that define t he due proces s s tandard of ‘t rad it ion al noti ons of fair pl ay and subs tanti al jus ti ce. ’” )) ; In r

e Gon zale z

, 993 S. W .2d 1 47, 1 5 1- 54 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 1999, pet. deni ed) ; Fl

or es v. Me lo- Pal

adin s, 921 S. W .2d 3 99, 4 02- 403 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1 9 9 6 , writde n ie d ). Th e re fo re , e ven as su m in g ar guendothatfor t he pur pose of the tr ial cour t’ s ex er ci se of pe rs onal jur is dicti on Par ker w as not a Tex as re si dent on D ecember 1, 2006, personal j ur is dicti on i n the tr ial co urt w as not i mprop er as Par ker

w as ser v ed w it h proces s i n W il barg er

C ounty

.7

Pa rk e r cites Redmon v. Lea ch , 130 S.W .2d 873 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.– Dallas 193 9, w rit dis m’d jud g m’t cor .) i n s upport of her cont enti on th e Tex as cour t had no j ur is dicti on to appoi nt a g uardia n for her

. But Red m on is ina pposi te. There, t he prospecti v e w ard w as a domi ci li ar

y of Okl ahoma and w as not s er v ed w it h c it ati on i n the Tex as proceed ing to est abl is h g uardia nshi p. Id. at 874. W e f ind perso nal jurisdiction ov er Parker prop erly atta ched . W e overrule Parker’s firs t i ss ue. In he r sec ond i ss ue and all ied su b- is sues , Pa rk er arg ues the t ria l co u rt erred by admit ti ng D r. W iec k’ s l etter as ev ide nce becau se it wa s n o t aut henti cat ed and w as hearsay , and bec ause W iec k w as n o t a q ual ified ex per t and Par ker

di d notco nsentto d isc lo su re of

co m m u n ica ti o n pro te ct e d b y t h e m e n ta l h e a lt h pro fe ss io n a l-p a ti e n t p rivile ge of Rule of Ev iden ce 51 0(b). Te x . R. Ev id. 51 0(b). W e revi ew challen ges to t he adm ission or excl usion of ev iden ce, un der an abu se of dis creti on s tandard. Nat ’ l Lia b. &F

ir e Ins. Co. v. Al

len , 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 7 -2 8 (T e x. 2000)

. Con duct ing su ch a re view, we e x amine the e nti re record to deter mine if the tr ial cour t ac ted a rb it ra ri ly

a n d u n reasonab ly

. Mo rr ow v. H .E.B ., Inc ., 714 S. W .2d 2 97, 2 98 (Tex . 198 6) . A tri al cour t does not abuse i ts dis creti on i f it bases i ts deci si on on confli cti ng ev ide nce and s om e ev ide nce suppo rt s i ts deci si on. In r e Bar ber , 982 S. W .2d 3 64, 3 66 (Tex . 19 9 8 ) (o ri g . proceed ing ). As fact fin der , i t w as for th e tr ial co urt t o bel iev e or d isb eli ev e the ev ide nce and resol v e q uest ion s o f credi bil ity . Aldi ne In dep. Sch. Dist. v. Ogg, 122 S.W .3d 257 , 267 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 03, no pe t.).In argu m e n tt o th e tri a l co u rt , c o u n se l fo r Pa rke r co n te n d e d th a t a tt a ch in g a 2 physician’s le tter to an app lication so it becom es pa rt of the reco rd is accepta ble. Bu t, if cont est ed, h e arg ued, the l etter sh oul d meet admis si bil ity req uirements of ev ide nce. 8 W it h ex cept ion s n ot ap pli cabl e h ere, no g uardia nshi p of an i ncapa ci tated person maybe c re ated unl ess a ph y si ci an’ s l etter or ce rt ific ate meet ing the re q uireme n ts of Probate Cod e s ect ion 687( a) i s p re sent ed to the tr ial co urt. Tex

. Prob. C ode An n. § 687( a) (V er non 2 0 0 3 ). Secti on 687( a) , as i t ex is ted a t t he ti me Jon es filed her appl ic ati on, re q uired a phy si ci an’ s l etter or ce rt ific ate: (1 ) d e scri be th e nat ure and deg re e of in capac ity , i ncl udi ng the medic al his tor y i f reas onabl y

av ail abl e; (2 ) p ro vid ea me dical p ro gn o s issp e c if yin g t h ee s t im a te d se ve ri t y of t h ein ca p a c ity; (3 ) st a te howor

i n w hat mann er

the propose d w ard's abi li ty to make o r communi cat e respon si ble decis ion s conc er nin g himsel f or h ersel f is affect ed by the person' s p hy si cal or mental heal th; (4 ) sta te w hether

a n y cu rrent medi cat ion affect s t he demeano r of the p ro p o se d wa r

d o r t h ep r o p o s e d wa r

d ' s a b i l i t y topa rt ici p atef

u lly in a co u rt

pro ce e d in g; (5 ) de sc rib e th e pre cis e p h ysica l a n d m e n ta l co n d it io n s u n d e rlyin g a dia g nosi s o f seni li ty , i f appli cabl e; (6 ) inc lud e any

othe r infor mati on req uired by the cour t. Tex . Prob. C ode An n. § 687( a) ( Ver non 200 3)

. The W iec k letter

as an a ttac hment t o J ones’ s a ppl ic ati on w as filed on D ecember 1, 200 6. Butat tr ial, over obje ction, the cou rt took jud icial notice of the lett er and also adm itted it into evi den ce. Parker’s com plaintis nott hatt he W ieck lette r fails t o con form w it h s ect ion 687(a); ra ther , s he arg ues the l etter w as not a dmis si ble as ev ide nce in a co n te st e d gua rd ia n sh ip he a rin g. 2W e not e i n the ir appl ic ati ons for g uardia nshi p of Park e r, Edw ard Par ker , W ard, 3 and Boring incorporate d the W ieck le t t e r b y referen ce, in ap pare nt recognition of their obl ig ati on unde r sec ti on 687( a) to presenta ph y si ci an’ s l etter or ce rt ific ate t o the co urt. W e al so note much of

the infor mati on contai ned in the W iec k let ter w as admit ted, 4 w it hout appel lat e c hal len g e, t hroug h the tes ti monial recoun t of D r. D ash’ s o pin ion s a nd th e obse rv ati o n o f

P arker’s beh avior by w itnesse s testif y ing fo r and againstJone s’s appoi ntment as Par ker ’s g uardia n. 9 Sect ion 687( a) req uires the a ppl ic ant for a gu ardia nshi p presenta ph y si ci an’ s l etter or ce rt ific ate t o the co urt. By req uir ing present ati on to the cour t, the l eg is lat ure i ntended the c o u rt t o c o n sid er

the cont ents of the l etter or ce rt ific ate. To sa y

the sta tute forbi ds jud ic ial co nsi derati on becaus e of ev ide nti ar

y co nst ra int s w oul d be il log ic al and render the sta tute nug ator

y . W e are no t f re e t o adopt a c onst ru cti on th at renders a st atute meanin g les s or lea ds to absurd resul ts. See W atts v. Cit y of Houston, 126 S. W .3d 9 7, 10 0 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 03, no pet.). W hile section 687 doe s not ad dress the use of a p h ysic ian ’s l etter

as ev ide nce in a c ontes ted h ear ing , s ect ion 628 spec ifies “ [t] he re c o rd b o o k s o r in d ivi d u a l ca s e f il e s . . . sh a ll b e e vid e n c e in a n y co u rto f t h is st a t e . ” T e x. Prob. C ode An n. § 628 (Ver non 2003). Here, tri al w as to the court and eve n if not a dmit ted as tr ial ev ide nce the cour t w as compel led to cons ide r the W iec k letter before g ra nti ng or deny ing Jo nes’ s a ppl ic ati on for g uardia nship. As sumi ng , butw it hout deci din g , t hat t he 3 cour t er re d i n admi tti ng the W iec k letter as ev ide nce in a cont est ed hear ing , the er ro r w as har mles s a s t he c our

t w as bound t o co n sid e r th e l etter

. W e ov er ru le Par ker ’s se cond 4 is sue and al li ed s ub- is sues . Throug h her third iss ue, Par ker ch all eng es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the tr ial court ’s f ind ing of incapa ci ty

. Probate Cod e s ect ion 684 li sts10

the elem ent s nece ssaryfor creating a guardian ship. T ex. Prob. Code Ann . § 684 (a), (b), (c ) (V er non 200 3)

. An app li cantmustprov e by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce, inter alia , tha t the propo sed ward is “an incap acitat ed p erson .” Id. at ( a) (1 ). An i ncapa ci tated person include s “an adu lt indiv idua l w ho, b ecau se of a p hysical or me nta l co nditio n, is substa ntially una ble to provi de food , clothin g, or shelte r fo r himself o r he rself , to care for the ind iv idua l's ow n phy si cal heal th, or to manag e the ind iv idu al’ s ow n financi al affairs . . . .” Tex . Prob. Cod e Ann. § 60 1( 14) (B ) (V er non 200 3)

. Inc a p aci ty of a prospecti v e adul t w ard mustbe ev ide nced by

“ re occ ur ri ng ac ts or occ ur re nces w it hin the precedi ng si x -mont h per iod and notby isolate d instan ces of negligence or bad judgmen t.” Tex. Prob. Cod e Ann . § 684 (c) (V er non 200 3)

. In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce under a c lea r and c onv inc ing sta ndard, w e l ook at al l the e v ide nce, i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the ju d gment, to deter mine if the tr ier of fact coul d re asona bly hav e formed a fir m bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at it s fin din g w as tr ue. In r e J.F.C ., 96 S. W .3d 2 56, 2 65- 66 ( Tex . 200 2)

. W e presume that the trier of fact resolved d isp ute d facts in favor of its f indings if a reason able trier of fact coul d do so. Id. W e di sreg ard any co ntrar y ev ide nce if a reason abl e tr ier of fact c oul d do so, but w e do not dis re g ard undi sput ed facts

. In r e J.L. , 163 S .W .3d 79, 85 (Tex. 2005 ). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual suff ic ien cy rev iew under the cle ar

and conv inc ing st andard, w e mustco nsi der

al l the ev ide nce the fact finder coul d re asona bly hav e found to be cl ear and convincing, det ermin ing w het her, on the entire record , the fact f inde r could reaso nab ly hav e formed a firm bel ief or conv ic ti on of t he tr uth of t he al leg ati ons. See In r e J.F.C ., 96He len Parker is L oyce Parker’s sister. H elen ’s husba nd was not relate d to Lo y ce’s 5 husba nd des pit e the sa me sur name. 11 S.W .3d a t 266 ; In r

e C .H ., 89 S. W .3d 1 7, 25 , 27-29 ( Tex . 2002). In so doi ng , w e c onsi der w het her dispu ted ev iden ce is such tha t a reaso nab le fact f inde r could ha v e resolved it in favor of its f inding. If , in lig ht of the entire record , dispu ted ev iden ce tha t a reaso nab le fact f inde r could no t have resolv ed in favor of the f inding is so significan t as to pre v enta fact finder reaso nabl y

f ro m forming a firm beli ef or co nv ic ti on of the tr uth o f the findi ng , t hen t he ev ide nce is factual ly

i nsuffici ent. See In r

e J.F.C ., 96 S. W .3d a t 266 ; In r e S. M. L.D ., 150 S.W .3d 754 , 757 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 04, no pe t.). At t ri al, the par

ti es shar ply

di sag re ed on Jones ’s clai m of Par ker ’s incapa ci ty . In her case in chie f , Jone s presen ted evidence of the opin ions of Dr. W ieck and Dr. Dash as well as tes ti mony

poi nti ng to a memor

y l oss by Par ker , t hat s he c oul d notdr iv e, ne eded 24 -h our super v is ion , and req uired hel p w it h food, meal s, and medi cat ion

. In op positio n to Jone s’s guardia nship , Helen Parker t estif ied Parker w as ha ppy in 5 Oklaho ma , alert, could b ath e he rself , and w as no t incap acitat ed. Kev in Bilbrey, Parker’s g ra ndson , ex press ed a bel ief tha t Parke r coul d c are for hersel f and had c apaci ty to ex ecut e a medi cal pow er of attor ney . Ri ck

C ull ar , a g ra ndson of Par ker , opi ned t hat P ar ker did not lac k total capac ity to care for hersel f and w as capab le of ex ecut ing a medi cal pow er of attor ney . Vick i L ov ett, admi nis trator of Hea rt lan d, ag re ed th at P ar ker pos ses sed the “c og nit iv e abi li ty ” to c re ate a medi cal pow er of attor ney . Jer ry W all ace, a lon g -t ime Par ker fam ily f riend , a s sisted Ed w ard Pa rker in moving his mot her f rom Alte rra to Heartlan d in Dec em b e r 2 0 0 6. Acc ordin g to W all ace, Par ker co uld ca rr

y on a co nv ersat ion and pla y12

domino es. He bel iev ed she did not total ly lac k capac ity to care for hersel f and di d notneed a g uardia n. Anothe r re lat iv e, S hir ley Par ker , bel iev ed Par ker di d notl ack total ca paci ty to care for hersel f. W ard al so opi ned t hat h er mother w as not t otal ly

i ncapa ci tated

. But ev en th ose oppos ing Jo n e s’s a ppoi ntment and t hei r w it ness es re cog niz ed P a r k e r ’ s l i mi t a t i o n s . B i l b r e y , w h e n q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt , t e s t i fi e d he w oul d not “recommend” Par ker

att empt prov idi ng her

ow n food, c lot hin g , or shel ter . W hen as ked on cross -e x aminat ion i f Park er co uld feed, c lot he, a nd hous e h e rs elf w it hout ass is tanc e Lov ett re spond ed, “ No. ” She als o “ imag ine [d]” Par ke r wou ld n eed hel p manag ing her financ ial affairs. W all ace sta ted P ar ker co uld not li v e in a rent h ouse w it hout ass is tanc e. Shi rl ey Par ker ac know led g ed Par ker needed hel p wit h h e r medic ati ons and c ooki ng . Par ker present ed ex cer pts of her Ja n u a ry

31, 2007, depos it ion

. This tes ti mony rev eal ed confusi on ov er

the durati on of her

st ay i n Ver non. Par ker ’s attor ney ad l it em tes ti fied he did not bel iev e Park er

could make a rati onal decis ion concer nin g the g ro unds on w hic h a guardian ship is b ased

. He fu rther test if ied, “I be liev e she has a sho rt term m em oryloss, and y ou c an g et on e ans w er now and a di ff erent answ er 15 mi nutes l ater

or a da y lat er . . . .” Vi ew ing al l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t mo s t fa v o ra b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s fi n d i ng of inc apaci ty , w e conc lud e that a reason abl e tr ier of fact c oul d hav e formed a fir m bel ief or conv ic ti on that Park er

w as an incap aci tated perso n. W e find the e v ide nce w as, therefore, leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he tr ial co u rt’s findi ng of inc apaci ty

. Addi ti onal ly , g iv ing due cons ide ra ti on to the ev ide nce that the tr ial cour t coul d re asona bly hav e found to be c lea r13

and convincing, w e f ind th e eviden ce w as factu ally suf f icient to supp ort the trial court’s findi ng of inc apaci ty

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Par ker ’s thi rd i ss ue. In he r fourth is sue, Par ker arg ues the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on by appoi nti ng a g uardia n w it h full ra ther than li mite d author ity . For thi s cl aim, she direct s u s t o Probate Code section 602 w hich she argues requires app ointm ent of a “partial guardian if th at less restrictiv e alte rnative w ill prote ct the w ard.” Sect ion 602 spec ifies the pol icy and pur pose of gu ardia nshi p: A c our t ma y a p poi nt a g uardia n w it h full auth or ity ov er an i ncapa ci tated person or

may g ra nt a g u a rd ia n l imi ted a uthor ity ov er an i ncapa ci tated person as ind ic ated by

the inc apaci tated person' s actua l mental or phy si cal li mita ti ons and onl y

as nec ess ar

y to promote an d p ro te ct the w ell -b ein g of the p erson. I f the person is not a m in o r, t h e courtmay not use ag e as the sol e f act o r

i n d e t e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r t o a p p o i n ta g u a rd i a n fo r t h e p e rs o n . In creati ng a g uardia nshi p tha t g iv es a g uardia n l imi ted p ow er or auth or ity

ov er an in c a p a c i t a t e d p e rs o n , t h e c o u rts h a l l d e s i g n t h e g u a rd i a n s h i p to encou ra g e the dev elo pment or m ain tenanc e of max imum s elf- re li ance and ind ependenc e i n the i ncapa ci tated person. Tex . Prob. C ode An n. § 602 ( Ver non 200 3)

. Sect ion 602 does not pro v ide a br ig ht- li ne standard for the tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion w hether to v esta g uardia n w it h full or l imi ted a uthor ity . Rat her i t ex press es the p oli cy of Cha pter X III of the Pro bate Code , w hic h, i n the w ords of one co mmentator , i s “ to s er v e the besti nterest s o f the di sabl ed w ard, bo th ph y si cal ly and financi all y .” C hr is topher J. Pet ti t, Jour ney Thr ough P ro tec ti ve Ser

vices for T exas Elder ly , 33 St. Mary 's L.J. 57, 64 (2001 ). To ser v e the w ard’s bes t i n terest , C hapter X III creates procedu re s for co urts ex er ci si ng jur is dicti on i n g uardia nshi p matt ers. Id. Thes e procedu re s “ bal ance the n eeds of the14

disab led w ard an d the desires of the propo sed guardia n to pro tect th e w ard f rom h imse lf or herself

as w ell as f rom th ird party inf luen ce.” Id. The proper j udi ci al appl ic ati on of thes e procedu re s req uires the e x er cise o f t h e c our

t’ s s ound di sc re ti on. See Eddin s v. Est ate o f Si

ever s, 789 S.W .2d 706 , 707 (Tex. A p p . –A u s t in 199 0, no w rit) (a court’s deter minatio n o f

t h e proper

ty pe of g uardia nshi p i s l eft to t he ex er ci se of its broad d i s c r e t i o n a n d i t s d e c i s i o n w i l l n o tb e d i s t u r b e d a b s e n ta c l e a r a b u s e o f

d i s c re t i o n )

. W e hav e not ed above the fact s s uppor ti ng our co ncl usi on th at t he ev ide nce w as leg all y and factu ally suf f icient to supp ort the trial court’s fin ding of incapa city . T hose facts also supp ort our co ncl usi on here tha t the tr ial cour t did not abuse it s dis creti on by appoi nti ng a full rather than li mite d g uardia nshi p of Par ker

. W e ov er ru le Par ker ’s fourt h i ss ue. In he r fifth is sue and allie d s ub- is sues , Pa rk er arg ues the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s discretion byapp ointin g Jone s her guardian b ecau se (a) Jones so ught con trol of Parker’s tr ustmaki ng thei r int erest s a dv erse; (b) P a rke r did not w ant J ones as her g uardia n; an d (c ) other rela ti v es w ere w il li ng to ser v e as Par ker ’s g uardia n. Probate Cod e s ect ion 642( b) (1 ) prohi bit s a person w it h an int erestadv erse to t he prop osed w ard or incom pet entperson f rom f iling an app lication to create a g uard iansh ip of the propose d w ard or inc apaci tated person. Tex . Prob. C ode An n. § 642( b) (1 ) (V er non 2003)

. Par ker

cl aims Jo nes has an i nterestadv erse to hers becau se she seek s cont ro l of Par ker ’s tr ust

. As the e v ide nti ar y bas is for t he c lai m Par ker r e lies on t he te sti mony of Jones ’s so n R ic k C ull ar thathe “ ass ume[d]” hi s mother w as conc er ned abo ut he r inh er it ance becau se she tol d hi m Edw ard Par ker made l oans from the tr ust to ot hers a nd she w as unsure i f a $100,00 0 l oan w as re pai d.15

Base d on ev ide nce of this w eig ht, the c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by deny ing Par ker ’s moti on in li mine to di sq ual ify Jo nes. See Tex . Prob. C ode An n. § 642( c) ( Ver non 200 3). Probate Cod e s e ct io n 6 79 aut hor iz es a person w ho i s n ot i ncapa ci tated to desi g nate, as w ell as di sq ual ify , pot enti al gua rd ians. Tex . Prob. C ode An n. § 679( a) (b ) (V er non 200 3)

. Sect ion 681 forbi ds appoi ntment of a pers on disq ual ified in a sec ti on 679 d e s i g n a t i o n . T e x . P ro b

. C o d e A n n . § 6 8 1 ( 9 ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. O n the day o f t r i a l , a s e l fprov ing dec larati on c re ati ng a hi erar chy of potent ial g uardia ns for Par ker w as filed

. The decl arati on ex press ly

di sq ual ified Jo nes from se rv ing as Par ker ’s g uar d ia n . Iti s n ot dis puted that Par ker

si g ned t he dec larati on th e day before tr ial beg an. The tr ial co urt det er mined Par ker ’s des ig nati on w as ine ff ect iv e bec ause she w as incap aci t a t e d t h e day before trial. During the presen tatio n of ev iden ce the court he ard tes ti mony

on the is sue w hether Par ker w as inc apaci tated

. Par ker w as not presentfor t ri al so as fact finder the percept ion of t he cour t of he r condi ti on w as based ex cl usi v ely on i ts e va lu a t io n o f t h e e vid e n c e wh ic h in c lu d e d b ri e f e xc e rp t s o f h e r de p o s it i o n t e s t im o n y. W it ness es oppos ed to Jo nes as g uardia n testi fied that Park er w anted her

so n Edw ard or one of the other

famil y members a ppoi nted g uardia n. Jones tes ti fied th at on D ecember 1, 20 06, t he day

sh e fil ed her

appl ic ati on, P ar ker

tol d her sh e c ould thi nk of no bett er person to serv e as her

g uardia n tha n J ones. The ne utral tes ti mony of Par ker ’s att or ney ad l it em she ds li g ht on the re ason for th is apparent d is par ity . Acc ordin g to the a ttor ney ad li tem, “ y ou c an g et on e ans w er now and a di ff erent a nsw er 15 mi nutes l a te r or

a da y16

later . .

. .” W e fi nd th e tr i al c ou rt di d no t ab us e i ts di s c ret i on i n di s reg ardi ng Parker’s desi g nati on. Fi nal ly , atthe ele v enth hour W ard and Bor ing co ntes ted t hei r s i s ter ’s appl ic ati on and alt er nati v ely

so ug ht ap poi ntment as g uardia n of Par ker

. But as the t ri al cour t noted, Jo nes came for

w ard first. Sh e too k P ar ker to Tex as after thei r father’ s d eath and s pent a subs tanti al amount o f time c ar ing for h er at Al ter ra unti l thei r br o ther Ed w ard Par ker remo v ed th eir mot her w ithou t not ice to Jon es. W ar d t hen felt Jon es sho uld be their mother ’s g uardia n and ex press ed the opi nio n in a card w ri tten the day after Jo nes filed her appl ic ati on. At the time of the Januar y 2007 temporar

y guardia nshi p heari ng , t he par ti es did notd i s p u t e P a r k e r ’ s n e e d fo r a t e mp o ra r

y g u a rd i a n . B u to n l y

J o n e s re q u est ed appoi ntment by

the tr ial co urt. W e find the t ri al cour t d id not abuse i ts dis creti on by a p p o in ti n g Jo n e s h e r m o th e r’s gua rd ia n a n d d e n ying th e ap p lic a ti o n s o f W a rd an d Bo rin g. W e overrule Parker’s fifth issue and allied sub-issue s. In he r si xth i ss ue, P ar ker contends it w as error

to appoi nt a g uardia n of her es tate b e c a u s e sh e p o s s e s s e d n o p ro p e rt y in T e xa s . P a r k e r p re s e n t s t h is a rg u m e n tin two sent ences , w it hout ci tati on to auth or ity or the re cord. An app ell ant’ s i ss ue th a t is not supp orted w ith au tho rities, conta ins no reco rd citation s, a n d make s only conclu sory arg uments present s n othi ng for a ppel lat e rev iew

. See Tex

. R. App. P. 38.1( h) ; Tac on Me ch. C ontr

actor s, Inc . v

. G ra nt S heet Me tal , Inc. , 889 S. W .2 d 6 66, 6 71 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th Di st. ] 199 4, w ri t den ied ). Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Par ker ’s final is sue.17

Hav ing ov er ru led eac h of Par ker ’s i ss ues and sub- is sues , w e af firm the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice