FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/14/2015 12:29:57 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
TAB 33 FILE 10 /2 1 6:05:55 PM StanStanart Stan Stanart ` CountyCler Clef HarrisCo Co y
Cause CauseN o.4427208 No. 27208 1N IN THE THE GUARDIANSHIP GUARDIANSHIPOF OF § IN THEPROBATE INTHE PROBATECOURT COURT
RUBY RUBY S.PETERSON, S. PETERSON, § NUMBERONE NUMBER ONE((1) 1)OFOF
ANINCAPACITATED AN INCAPACITATED PERSON PERSON § HARRIS HARRISCOUNTY, COUNTY, TE
FIRSTAMENDEDANSWER FIRSTAMENDEDANSWER -o TO TO THE THE HONORABLE HONORABLE JUDGEOFSAID JUDGEOFSAIDC OURT: COURT: COMES COMES NOW, NOW, W. W. R ussJJones, Russ ones,acting inhis asAttomey in his capacity as Ad LitemforMrs. AttorneyAdLitem for Mrs. Ruby Ruby S.Peterson, S. Peterson, having been duly appointed been duly assuch appointedas by JudgeL suchbyJudge oydH Loyd H..Wright on February25, Wrighton 25, 2014, toTexas 2014, pursuantto TexasEstates EstatesCCode Section1054.001, odeSection 1054.001, and and entersan appearanceon entersan behalfof on behalf of theproposed wardand the proposedward and respectfullyshows untothe showsunto the Courtthe following: the following: I.I. General Denial The The proposed wardgenerally denieseachofthe proposed ward generally denieseach allegations of the material allegationsset forthinthei set forth in the applicationfor application for guardianship,and demandsstrictproofthereof byclearandconvincing evidence.S and demands strict proof thereof by clear and convincing evidence. II.Lesser RestrictiveAlternatives II. Lesser Restrictive Alternatives Proposedwardhasvalidgeneral durableandmedicalpowersofofattomey Proposed ward has valid general durable and medicalpowers whichhavebeen attorney which have been inplace andfunctioning formanyyyears. in place and functioning formany ears.A ssuch,thereis no need As such, there is no forguardianship protection, need for guardianship protection,
given the and oftheselesser alternatives to given the existence and functionality of these lesser restrictive alternatives to guardianship. III.DEFENSESQ III. DEFENSES l.1. NOFALSE IMPRISONMENT: RubyPeterson isnotbeing,andhasnotbeen,falsely NO FALSE IMPRISONMENT: Ruby Peterson is not being, and has not been, falsely imprisonedattheSilverado Senior Living Center-Sugar Landbecause Mrs.Peterson consented imprisoned at the Silverado Senior Living Center-Sugar Land because Mrs. Peterson consented (byvalidDurable Medical Power ofAttorney executed in1993)forhealthcaredecisions tobe (by valid Durable Medical Power of Attorney executed in 1993) for health care decisions to be madeonherbehalfbyCarolAnnManley andDavid TroyPeterson intheeventthatsheshouldtt made on her behalf by Carol Ann Manley and David Troy Peterson in the event that she should
Silverado Appx. 0177 No. 1-15-586-CV 3122 become become physically or mentally incapable or mentally incapable ofmaking such decisions of making such decisions for Oneofthe for herself. One of the
reasons fortheDurable reasons for the Durable Medical Power ofAttomey Medical Power to avoid was to of Attorney was avoid tthe need for heneed for a guardianship of of
her person tthrough her person hrough the creation of thecreation lesser restrictive alternative of a lesser to guardianship. alternativeto Further, guardianship. Further, the the
decision decision thatMrs. that Mrs.Peterson Peterson beadmitted be admitted to secured toaasecured memory memory facility carefacility care forhersafety for and her safety and
protection protection was not madesolely was not at thewhim made solely at discretion ooffMrs. the whim ordiscretion Mrs. P eterson's Peterson's healthcare health care agents; agents;
rather, rather, it was based it was the p on the based on rofessional professional medical recommendations medical recommendations and and a dvice advice of of