Court Opinion

ID: 9718103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:17:04.605016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.337300
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I am firmly convinced we should affirm. The ward has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence his capacity to perform the tasks necessary for the care of his person or the management of his estate. The court specifically stated in its decision “guardianship is proper for reason of either mental or physical disability. 755 ILCS [5/1 la — 2(a) (West 2004)]. The conditions necessitating guardianship are still present today as they were in 2005. No physician has certified otherwise.” Moreover, both the ward’s attorney and his GAL agreed the wardship should continue. The physical disability alone is sufficient for wardship under the statute. However, this gentleman additionally suffers delusional thinking and has an unrealistic perception of his abilities. “Although the client is clearly in a difficult position as he is rendered to his wheel chair and has difficulty speaking audibly, due to the partial paralysis of his diaphragm, he does not appear to be realistic regarding his physical capabilities. Client often becomes choked while speaking, adding to his difficulty to converse. He also reported substantial embarrassment regarding his tendency to cough during conversation. An evaluation by his primary care physician also indicated client’s unrealistic view of his physical capabilities. Overall, client appears to hold delusional beliefs about his past and present treatment and is having extreme difficulty adjusting to life in his current environment.” The court was correct: it had to factually decide removal of disability, and the placement in the ward’s best interests, giving him maximum freedom. Here the disability was not removed so the court did not go on to address best interests. The issue here is whether the ward has established by clear and convincing evidence his capacity to perform tasks necessary for his care. The ward’s attorney, GAL, and the court concurred the ward had not done so. The evidence at the hearing establishes: “Catholic Charities: ward cannot live independently, needs 24 hour care, cannot feed himself, perform normal hygiene, walk without assistance, hard for him to vocalize, delusional thinking. GAL: unrealistic perception of his abilities, recommend guardianship remain, incapable of caring for himself physically on his own.” For these reasons, the trial court should be affirmed.