Opinion ID: 2639298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appointing Guardians and Conservators

Text: The legislature has specified selection priorities for persons seeking to be appointed guardians or conservators. Alaska Statute 13.26.145(d) establishes the priorities for qualified persons seeking appointment as guardians: [Q]ualified persons have priority for appointment as guardian in the following order: (1) a person, association, or private nonprofit corporation nominated by the incapacitated person, if at the time of the nomination the incapacitated person had the capacity to make a reasonably intelligent choice; (2) the spouse of the incapacitated person; (3) an adult child or parent of the incapacitated person; (4) a relative of the incapacitated person with whom the incapacitated person has resided for more than six months during the year before the filing of the petition; (5) a relative or friend who has demonstrated a sincere, longstanding interest in the welfare of the incapacitated person; (6) a private association or nonprofit corporation with a guardianship program for incapacitated persons; (7) the public guardian. Likewise, AS 13.26.210(a) establishes the priorities for qualified persons seeking appointment as conservators: The following are entitled to consideration for appointment in the order listed: (1) a conservator, guardian of property, or other like fiduciary appointed or recognized by the appropriate court of any other jurisdiction in which the protected person resides; (2) an individual or corporation nominated by the protected person if the protected person is 14 or more years of age and has, in the opinion of the court, sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice; (3) the spouse of the protected person; (4) an adult child of the protected person; (5) a parent of the protected person, or a person nominated by the will of a deceased parent; (6) any relative of the protected person with whom the protected person has resided for more than six months before the filing of the petition; (7) a person nominated by the person who is caring for or paying benefits to the protected person. The legislature anticipated justifiable deviation from these priorities. As to guardians, the legislature adopted AS 13.26.145(e). It provides that the priorities established in (d) of this section are not binding, and the court shall select the person, association, or nonprofit corporation that is best qualified and willing to serve.  (Emphasis added.) As to conservators, the legislature adopted AS 13.26.210(b). It states that the court, for good cause, may pass over a person having priority and appoint a person having less priority or no priority. (Emphasis added.) Both appointment statutes express equivalent preferences. Both prefer persons nominated by the protected party to other persons. Both generally prefer close family members to distant family members, and family members to non-family members. The least favored applicants are those persons or entities most distant from the ward. Both statutes give the appointing court discretion to override the statutory preferences. Notwithstanding the priorities, the court must select the best qualified guardianship applicant willing to serve. [6] And it may deviate from the statutory priorities for good cause in selecting a conservator. [7] The Alaska Probate Rules specify some procedures governing guardianships and conservatorships. Of particular interest to selection are Probate Rules 16(a) and 17(a). The former provides that a petition for guardianship must state the priority of the nominee under AS 13.26.145 and, if known, the names and addresses of any person with a higher priority. [8] The latter provides that a petition for conservatorship must state the priority of the nominee under AS 13.26.210 and, if known, the names and addresses of any person with a higher priority. [9] These provisions help advance the statutory appointment priorities. The court initially selected CAPA as H.L.S.'s conservator with the family's consent and substituted CAPA for T.B. and H.C.S. as H.L.S.'s guardians, again without objection by the family. Because CAPA's appointments were uncontested, the superior court had no reason then to determine whether deviating from the statutory priorities was justified. It therefore had no reason to determine whether CAPA was best qualified to serve as guardian [10] i.e., better qualified than an applicant of higher priorityor whether there was good cause to appoint CAPA conservator over another applicant with higher priority. [11] H.C.S. does not claim that the superior court abused its discretion in initially appointing CAPA guardian and conservator.