Opinion ID: 2639298
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A two-part analysis should apply to petitions to remove or replace guardians or conservators.

Text: Neither section .125 nor section .235 specifies any procedure for seeking removal. Nor do the Alaska Probate Rules. [17] We recognize the potential for disputes over appointing guardians and conservators and efforts to remove them. Litigation over such matters can be contentious and can disrupt family relationships already strained by the ward's circumstances. Extended or repeated litigation over removal is costly both emotionally and financially. We are reluctant to encourage serial disputes should applicants with successively higher priority under the appointment statutes petition to replace existing guardians and conservators. But we also recognize that families may have difficulty in dealing with a family member's incapacity, and that persons with statutory priority may not initially be able or willing to take on the responsibilities of guardian or conservator. In such cases, it may be essential to appoint a professional. That initial appointment should not altogether foreclose qualified family members from later asking the court to appoint them in place of the professional. The procedure for modifying child custody awards provides a useful analytical model. Child custody is awarded in accordance with the child's best interests. [18] Likewise, guardians for incapacitated persons are appointed to promote and protect the well-being of the person. [19] Conservators are appointed for the protection of those who, through incapacity, cannot manage their property and affairs effectively. [20] The legislature has adopted a two-part test for modifying child custody awards. Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that [a]n award of custody of a child ... may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child. Thus, the non-custodial parent must first demonstrate that circumstances have changed significantly since entry of the prior custody order. [21] Requiring this threshold showing of changed circumstances has the purpose of `discourag[ing] discontented parents from continually renewing custody proceedings. [22] We think an equivalent requirement of changed circumstances is desirable when there is a dispute about changing a guardian or conservator, to minimize repeated guardianship or conservatorship contests. Therefore, in seeking a contested change of the guardian or conservator, a petitioner must first show that the circumstances of the ward, guardian, or conservator have changed materially since the guardian or conservator was appointed. [23] Once the petitioner demonstrates changed circumstances, the court must decide whether the existing appointment is in the ward's best interests. This best interests determination will require the court to take into account the closeness of the ward's relationships to the existing and prospective guardians and conservators. This inquiry gives weight to the substantive values that apparently underlie the statutory priorities for appointing guardians and conservators. [24] The length and quality of existing appointments will often also be relevant to the best interests determination. While the material circumstances in any given dispute will be case-specific, disrupting the ward's relationship with the existing guardian or conservator may raise concerns about continuity and stability analogous to equivalent concerns in the child custody context. [25] Likewise, if a change would likely affect the ward's physical placement, the extent to which the ward has formed relationships with caregivers or others in the ward's present living arrangement may be relevant. Other circumstances may also be relevant in particular cases.