Opinion ID: 2820812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of the Guardianship Decision

Text: [¶16] Turning to the merits of McIntosh’s challenge, we examine all of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court, and we review the court’s factual findings for clear error. Guardianship of K-M, 2005 ME 8, ¶ 38, 866 A.2d 106. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge to facts that must be found by clear and convincing evidence,6 we examine “whether the trial court could have reasonably been persuaded on the basis of evidence in the record that the required factual findings were highly probable.” In re M.S., 2014 ME 54, ¶ 13, 90 A.3d 443; see also In re Cyr, 2005 ME 61, ¶ 16, 873 A.2d 355 (“[U]nless there is no record evidence to support the appointment of a guardian and conservator, we will uphold the court’s decision.”). [¶17] As defined by statute, a court will find a person to be “incapacitated” if the person is “impaired by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, or other cause except minority to the extent that he [or she] lacks sufficient understanding or 6 We note that the Probate Court applied the proper standard of proof by requiring that the Department prove the elements supporting appointment of a public guardian according to the heightened “clear and convincing” standard. The adult guardianship provisions were substantially amended in 2009 to impose this standard. See P.L. 2009, ch. 349, § 1 (effective Sept. 12, 2009) (codified at 18-A M.R.S. § 5-304(b)). 10 capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning his [or her] person.” 18-A M.R.S. § 5-101(1). Although spouses, family members, and prior guardians are given priority for guardianship, see 18-A M.R.S. § 5-311(b) (2014), the court may also appoint the Department as public guardian for incapacitated persons in need of protective services, see 18-A M.R.S. §§ 5-601, 5-606 (2014). A court may not appoint a public guardian, however, if it “determines that a suitable private guardian or conservator is available and willing to assume responsibilities for such service.” Id. § 5-602. [¶18] Here, the court had testimony from medical, psychiatric, and institutional professionals establishing that due to her chronic schizophrenia, McIntosh suffers from depression and delusional fears, among other symptoms, and has been unable to function outside of a hospital environment for over five years. The court also had evidence that, although some of her concerns regarding side effects of medications may have been valid, her inability to commit to a treatment plan and her constant requests for changes were detrimental to the effectiveness of her treatment. Thus, there was competent evidence to support findings, to the clear and convincing standard of proof, that McIntosh is incapacitated and that the appointment is necessary for her continuing care and supervision. See id. §§ 5-101(1), 5-304(b); In re Cyr, 2005 ME 61, ¶ 16, 873 A.2d 355; Guardianship of K-M, 2005 ME 8, ¶¶ 38-40, 866 A.2d 106. 11 [¶19] Further, there was ample evidence to support a finding that McIntosh’s mother would not be a suitable private guardian. See 18-A M.R.S. § 5-602. Although McIntosh’s mother has expressed interest in supporting McIntosh, the record establishes that she is not capable of responsibly managing her daughter’s medical care or providing her with the necessary support for a healthy life outside of the hospital. [¶20] To the extent that McIntosh challenges the scope of the guardianship, we review “the determination of the guardian’s powers and duties for an abuse of discretion.” In re Cyr, 2005 ME 61, ¶ 16, 873 A.2d 355. Here, the court considered certain potentially less restrictive options, namely the possibilities that McIntosh’s mother, other relatives, or community members could care for McIntosh, and it found those options inadequate to meet McIntosh’s needs. See Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1995) (stating that the appointment of a full guardian “should not be done without careful consideration of the prospective ward’s specific needs”). Based on McIntosh’s condition and the evidence regarding her own and her family’s inability to meet her medical and other needs, the court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the Department as public guardian. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 12 On the briefs: Wayne Doane, Esq., Exeter, for appellant Colleen M. McIntosh Jeanne Snodgrass, appellee pro se Janet T. Mills, Attorney General and Janine A. Raquet, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Bangor, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services Penobscot County Probate Court docket number 2010-687 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY