NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-651

GUARDIANSHIP OF D.S.S.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a trial on a petition for guardianship filed by 

the mother of D.S.S., a judge of the Probate and Family Court 

issued a decree appointing Attorney Karen Sandler as sole 

plenary guardian of the mother's incapacitated son. The mother 

appeals from the decree. Among other arguments, the mother 

contends, in essence, that Attorney Sandler is not suitable for 

the sole guardianship over D.S.S. We affirm.1 

Background. At the time of trial, D.S.S. was a twenty one

year old "mentally retarded person" and an "incapacitated 

person" as such terms are defined in G. L. c. 190B, § 5-101 (9) 

and (12), and "remain[ed] in need of a plenary guardian." 

D.S.S. suffered from diagnosed "moderate intellectual disability 

and autism spectrum disorder," was nonverbal, and received

services from the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).

1 We acknowledge receipt of the mother's April 24, 2023 letter to 

this court. 
2

On June 8, 2018, the mother filed a petition for 

guardianship of D.S.S., along with an ex parte motion for 

appointment as his temporary guardian, for D.S.S. to undergo a

dental procedure requiring anesthesia. An order entered 

appointing the mother temporary guardian of D.S.S. on June 12, 

2018, and the dental procedure went forward. The temporary 

guardianship order was set to expire on September 26, 2018, with 

a review hearing scheduled for the same day. DDS filed a notice 

of appearance, an objection to the mother's appointment, and a 

supporting affidavit.2 At the review hearing, the temporary 

guardianship was modified by agreement of the parties and the 

court appointed the mother and Attorney Sandler as temporary 

coguardians of D.S.S. In 2019, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was 

appointed to investigate and evaluate whether the mother was an 

appropriate and suitable candidate for appointment as D.S.S.'s 

sole guardian. The matter went to trial in November 2021.3 In 

her thoughtful and comprehensive posttrial findings of fact and 

rulings of law, which need not be repeated in detail herein, the 

judge concluded that although the mother "loves her son" and 

2 As the judge found, "[t]here is a significant history of 

problematic behavior by [the mother] with her son, including 

resulting reports to the Disabled Persons Protection Commission 

(DPPC) that demonstrate her lack of understanding of her son and 

his capabilities."

3 Counsel was appointed for D.S.S. at DDS's request. D.S.S.'s 

counsel "represented that he does not believe [the mother] is an 

appropriate or suitable guardian for her son, [D.S.S.]"
3

"tries in her own way to do what is best for him," the mother 

does not truly understand or accept the nature of D.S.S.'s 

disabilities and is not a suitable guardian for him. The judge 

also determined that Attorney Sandler is a suitable guardian who 

has significant experience as an "advocate for persons with 

intellectual disabilities and has been serving as a guardian for 

several individuals served by DDS." The judge appointed 

Attorney Sandler as D.S.S.'s sole guardian.

Discussion. In her brief, the mother takes exception to 

the GAL's reports, claims that Attorney Sandler is not a 

suitable guardian for D.S.S., intimates that Attorney Sandler is 

using D.S.S. as a profit center and has bullied the mother, and 

complains that a DDS coordinator has engaged in "constant 

bullying," threats, and "psychological terror to the entire 

family." The mother's briefing is legally inadequate. She 

fails to cite to any case law, statutes, or other legal 

authority to support her arguments. Accordingly, the claims do 

not rise to the level of appellate argument and are deemed 

waived. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 

Mass. 1628 (2019); Tobin v. Commissioner of Banks, 377 Mass. 

909, 909 (1979). 

Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother's arguments were

sufficiently stated in her brief, there is nothing in the

appellate record demonstrating that any of the judge's findings
4

are clearly erroneous or that she abused her discretion in

determining that the mother is not a suitable guardian while 

Attorney Sandler is.4 See generally G. L. c. 190B, §§ 5-305,

306, 309. See also Guardianship of Bassett, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 

56, 64 (1979). To the contrary, the judge's ample findings have

support in the record and show that the judge carefully weighed 

the evidence and effectuated D.S.S.'s best interests. See 

Guardianship of B.V.G., 474 Mass. 315, 321 (2016) ("guardianship 

proceeding is designed to effectuate the best interests of the 

incapacitated person"). Accordingly, we affirm the decree of 

guardianship.5 

Decree affirmed.

By the Court (Neyman, Sacks & 

Hodgens, JJ.6),

Clerk

Entered: May 24, 2023.

4 As the judge noted and we have no doubt, the mother loves her 

son and wants what is best for him. Nothing stated herein 

should be construed to suggest otherwise. 

5 To the extent we do not discuss other arguments made by the 

mother, they have not been overlooked. "We find nothing in them 

that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 

66, 78 (1954). 

6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.