Court Opinion

ID: 9904956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 15:08:40.318498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:00.913841
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                              APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
       This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                       DOCKET NO. A-2782-21

IN THE MATTER OF
A.H.
___________________

                  Submitted October 18, 2023 – Decided November 28, 2023

                  Before Judges Currier and Susswein.

                  On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                  Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. P-
                  000128-21.

                  Dilworth Paxson, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Kristen
                  L. Behrens, of counsel and on the briefs; Sarah
                  Gremminger, on the brief).

                  B.M., respondent, has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

         A.H.1 appeals from a Chancery Division judgment of limited incapacity

and appointment of a guardian to act on her behalf in divorce litigation with her

1
    We use initials to protect the privacy interests of the parties. R. 1:38-3(a)(2).
estranged husband, T.H. 2 After carefully reviewing the record in light of the

governing legal principles and the deference we owe to the trial court's

credibility findings, we affirm.

                                          I.

        We discern the following pertinent facts from the evidence presented at

the competency trial. A.H. and T.H. were married in New Jersey on June 6,

1987. They have three children together, all of whom are now adults. A.H.

originally filed a complaint for divorce in June 2012. The divorce action was

dismissed by a consent order entered in January 2017.

        A.H. and T.H. have dual citizenship in the United States and Cyprus. T.H.

also filed for divorce in Cyprus. A divorce decree was entered by the Nicosia

Family Court on July 18, 2018. The Cyprus divorce decree did not address

support issues or the distribution of assets. T.H. filed a request to register the

foreign judgment in New Jersey. A.H. objected. Accordingly, T.H. and A.H.

remained legally married in this State.

        In September 2018, A.H. filed a new complaint for divorce.         Those

proceedings stalled. Concerns arose regarding A.H.'s capacity to manage her

affairs. In October 2019, the Family Part judge issued an order appointing

2
    T.H. filed a motion to intervene in this appeal, which was denied.
                                                                            A-2782-21
                                          2
Bettina Munson, Esq. as guardian ad litem for A.H. "to serve as an independent

investigator, fact finder and evaluator to report back to the [c]ourt as to whether

[A.H.] lacks sufficient mental capacity needed to conduct the litigation." The

judge also ordered A.H. to undergo a mental evaluation.

      On January 6, 2021, Munson submitted a report to the court,

recommending that an action for guardianship be initiated under Rule 4:86. On

February 8, 2021, the Family Part judge issued an order directing the filing of

an application for guardianship of A.H.

      On April 8, 2021, Munson filed a complaint for guardianship in the

Chancery Division.      She submitted certifications of two doctors—Steven

Dyckman, M.D. and Julie Davelman, Psy.D.             A.H. opposed the petition,

submitting a certification of a third doctor—Beverlee A. Tegeder, Psy.D.

      On August 27, 2021, the Chancery Division judge held a preliminary

hearing and appointed Suzana Hot as designated trial counsel for A.H. The

guardianship hearing spanned three non-consecutive days between October

2021 and February 2022.        The court heard testimony from Munson, Dr.

Dyckman, Dr. Davelman, Dr. Tegeder, T.H., and A.H. 3

3
  A.H.'s counsel requested A.H. be permitted to participate virtually in the
competency hearing. The judge denied that request, citing the presumption that

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                        3
      Munson testified that when they "had a general discussion of life in

general [A.H.] did pretty well," but when their conversations involved the

divorce and related issues, A.H. "would become anxious." Munson specifically

mentioned a January 2020 court date where A.H. was "physically shaking. Her

appearance was quite disheveled. You know, she just became so nervous and

so anxious about being there."

      Munson testified that A.H. expressed that going to court caused her to be

so anxious and nervous that she would have a panic attack and needed to take

medication. A.H. also reported to Munson that she could not handle making

decisions about her case and she became very nervous and easily upset in

discussing the divorce. A.H. further told Munson that she did not feel that she

would be able to help her attorney with any of the court proceedings or

participate in any type of litigation.

      Dr. Dyckman, the only psychiatrist to testify, diagnosed A.H. with post-

traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. He also questioned

whether she had bipolar disorder. During his evaluations of A.H., Dr. Dyckman

observed that she was "extremely anxious." He testified that A.H. had "a

competency hearings should be conducted in person and noting the need for the
court to observe how A.H. would act during a court appearance.

                                                                         A-2782-21
                                         4
number of bad experiences in court in the past and she was extremely fearfu l of

her husband." Further, A.H. "was extremely depressed and anxious and stressed

about having to come to court to testify." He continued, explaining A.H. "felt

that she had been tricked in the past into saying things that she didn't realize she

was saying and she was very concerned that that would happen again." Dr.

Dyckman opined that these issues would "definitely have a great impact on her

ability to participate [in divorce proceedings] in a rational way." He also opined

that A.H. was unable to assist her attorney in connection with her divorce

proceedings and participate meaningfully.

      Dr. Davelman testified her evaluation of A.H. "reflected that she had a

high level of anxiety and depression, she had difficulty with assessing situations,

and conveying and asserting her wishes when she's stressed." She diagnosed

A.H. with severe major depressive disorder and panic disorder. She did not find

any indicators of bipolar disorder. She noted that A.H.'s anxiety was triggered

by being in the same place as T.H. and having to discuss the divorce proceedings

in general. Dr. Davelman further testified that A.H. said "there were times

where she felt like she wasn't able to understand what was going on in the court

and that she was losing focus and having a hard time processing what was

happening."    Although A.H. "didn't want to give up the chance to make

                                                                              A-2782-21
                                         5
decisions, [she] also felt like she would have a hard time doing so." However,

Dr. Davelman also opined that it was possible for A.H.'s condition to improve.

      T.H. testified regarding his observations of A.H.'s mental health over the

course of their marriage. He detailed issues that arose during the divorce

litigation and noted A.H.'s "obstructive" behavior.

      T.H. described an incident where A.H. sent a text to someone suggestive

of suicidal intent, prompting a mobile crisis team to respond to their home. He

also detailed incidents where A.H. would stop taking her medication, and

become verbally abusive toward family members and friends.

      Dr. Tegeder testified that based on her evaluation of A.H., she found her

to be mentally competent. She stated A.H. "has a full understanding of the

proceedings regarding her divorce proceeding, . . . [and that] she does have the

capacity to comprehend and understand the proceedings." She determined A.H.

suffers from moderate depression. Dr. Tegeder explained A.H. is "in treatment.

She's on medication, but it's not to the extent that it's impairing her ability to

make decisions."

      Dr. Tegeder acknowledged she only reviewed medical records from A.H.'s

treating psychiatrist, Dr. Bransfield.       Cross-examination revealed that Dr.

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                         6
Tegeder was not aware of many facts that might have impacted her opinion as

to A.H.'s capacity to participate in the divorce proceeding.

      A.H. testified she was "capable of understanding, comprehending what's

going on in the court and [is] able to defend [her]self." She said she had an

excellent relationship with her current matrimonial lawyer. She felt confident

she could work with her in reference to the divorce action.            On cross-

examination, she acknowledged that in 2014 Dr. Bransfield opined she was not

competent to sign legal agreements regarding the divorce proceeding, was

unable to maintain adequate judgment and advocate for herself, and was not

competent to represent herself pro se. A.H. refused to acknowledge the facts

stated in a previous court opinion, insisting the judge's opinion was

"misprinted."

      On March 31, 2022, the Chancery Division judge issued a judgment of

limited incapacity and appointment of guardian, appointing a lawyer to serve as

limited guardian to act on A.H.'s behalf in the divorce action. The judge found

"by clear and convincing evidence [A.H.] is in need of a limited [g]uardian for

the purpose of the prosecution and defense of the pending [m]atrimonial action."

The judge explained "that the stress of the proceedings result in [A.H.] not being

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                        7
capable of making rational decisions to protect her interests and she is

incapacitated when dealing with the [m]atrimonial proceedings."

      The judge further explained that the need for a competency evaluation

arose from the long pending divorce litigation, which was the subject of multiple

proceedings and more than fifty orders. The judge found A.H.'s actions had

stymied the proceedings. Moreover, A.H. had a longstanding history of mental

health treatment and she had a "significant" amount of prescribed medications.

      The judge highlighted the substantial disagreement between the parties'

experts. Dr. Tegeder opined that A.H. was doing better mentally than she had

been in the past, was capable of making her own decisions, and was not in need

of guardianship. The judge discounted Dr. Tegeder's testimony, reasoning that

she did not perform as thorough a review as did Dr. Dyckman.

      The judge found Dr. Dyckman to be the most credible and reliable expert

witness.    The judge credited Dr. Dyckman's thorough review of A.H.'s

psychiatric history and determined his analysis was most consistent with the

facts as testified to by the parties.

      The judge found T.H. to be a credible witness but acknowledged the

"extremely strained relationship" between the spouses.       He explained T.H.

harbors resentment over how long the divorce litigation has lasted and attributes

                                                                           A-2782-21
                                        8
that delay and his financial problems to A.H. Nonetheless, the judge found T.H.

provided clear, credible testimony as to the problems A.H. experienced during

the marriage and the divorce litigation.

      The judge determined A.H. was the most important witness. The judge

observed her throughout her testimony and reviewed evidence of A.H. being

physically incapable of proceeding with hearings and the matrimonial litigation.

The judge acknowledged A.H. appeared to be in control of herself in the

courtroom.     He did not observe A.H. shaking uncontrollably or in any

inappropriate manner. The judge further noted that A.H. performed well while

testifying on direct examination.

      The judge described a change in A.H.'s behavior during her cross-

examination.    The judge found that when cross-examination touched on a

sensitive topic, A.H. was not completely in control of her response or reactions

to questions. The judge further found that her thought process was not rational,

that she became increasingly disturbed over the course of cross-examination and

lashed out with inappropriate and defensive responses.

      Based on those observations, the judge was "absolutely convinced" that

A.H. needed a limited guardian to help her make decisions involving the divorce

action and to protect her interests and wellbeing. The written order appointing

                                                                          A-2782-21
                                           9
a guardian was entered on March 31, 2022. On April 1, 2022, the judge issued

an amended order substituting a different guardian from the one named in the

March 31 order. That April 1 order further provided that "[a]ll other items in

the [March 31, 2022] [j]udgment remain in effect."

      This appeal follows. After it was discovered that A.H. had not ordered a

transcript of the trial court's March 30, 2022 oral opinion, on our own motion,

we ordered A.H. to provide a transcript of the oral opinion and to file a

supplemental brief.

      A.H. raises the following contentions for our consideration in her initial

and supplemental briefs: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to

apply the clear and convincing standard to evidence presented as to her alleged

incapacity; (2) the trial court erred in failing to order updated medical

evaluations; (3) the trial court erred in allowing T.H. to file an answer and testify

at the guardianship hearing; (4) the trial court erred in finding A.H. needs a

guardian with respect to the divorce action; and (5) the trial court erred by failing

to order reasonable accommodations or less restrictive alternatives to

guardianship.

                                       III.

                                                                               A-2782-21
                                        10
      We begin our analysis by acknowledging the legal principles and

procedural safeguards governing this appeal. We review the Chancery Division

judge's determination for an abuse of discretion. See In re Est. of Hope, 390

N.J. Super. 533, 541 (App. Div. 2007) ("Remedies available to courts of equity

'are broad and adaptable.'") (quoting In re Mossavi, 334 N.J. Super. 112,121

(Ch. Div. 2000)); see also Wolosoff v. CSI Liquidating Tr., 205 N.J. Super. 349,

360 (App. Div. 1985). "The exercise of . . . discretion will be interfered with by

an appellate tribunal only when the action of the trial court constitutes a clear

abuse of that discretion." Salitan v. Magnus, 28 N.J. 20, 26 (1958). A trial court

decision will only constitute an abuse of discretion where "the 'decision [was]

made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established

policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep't of Agric.

v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 504 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Flagg v.

Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).

      We will not disturb a guardianship appointment pursuant to the guardian

statute, N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24 to -29, in the absence of the mistaken exercise of the

considerable discretion vested in the judge. See In re Queiro, 374 N.J. Super.

299, 311 (App. Div. 2005); see also In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 53-55 (1976).

Nonetheless, challenges to legal conclusions as well as a trial judge's

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                       11
interpretation of the law are subject to de novo review. Est. of Hanges v. Metro.

Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 382–83 (2010).

      The legal authority to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated person is

"derive[d] from the inherent equitable authority of the sovereign to protect those

persons within the state who cannot protect themselves because of an inn ate

legal disability." In re Grady, 85 N.J. 235, 259 (1981). "[T]he [S]tate's parens

patriae power supports the authority of its courts to allow decisions to be made

for an incompetent that serve the incompetent's best interests, even if the

person's wishes cannot be clearly established." In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 364-

65 (1985). A person is incapacitated if she "is impaired by reason of mental

illness or intellectual disability to the extent that the individual lacks sufficient

capacity to govern [her]self and manage [her] affairs." N.J.S.A. 3B:1-2.

       Rule 4:26-2(a) provides that a mentally incapacitated person "shall be

represented in an action by the guardian of either the person or the property."

When a mentally incapacitated person is not represented by a guardian,

paragraph (a) authorizes the court to appoint "a guardian ad litem . . . in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this rule." R. 4:26-2(a).

      A judicial determination of mental incapacity, however, must precede the

appointment of a guardian. S.T. v. 1515 Broad St., LLC, 241 N.J. 257, 277

                                                                               A-2782-21
                                        12
(2020). Rule 4:26-2(b) "sets forth the initial procedure that follows when a

person is alleged to be mentally incapacitated." Ibid. "The court may appoint a

guardian ad litem for . . . [an] alleged or adjudicated incapacitated person on its

own motion," or the motion of others. R. 4:26-2(b)(4). "The word 'alleged'

before 'mentally incapacitated' is not surplus language but is central to

understanding the guardian ad litem's function at this stage." S.T., 241 N.J. at

277.

       "Under Rule 4:26-2(a), a guardian for a 'mentally incapacitated person' is

authorized to prosecute a legal action on her behalf." Ibid. "In contrast, the role

of a guardian ad litem for an "alleged mentally incapacitated person" under Rule

4:26-2(b) is more limited . . . [.]" Ibid. The commentary to the court rule

explains:

             The use of the qualifier "alleged" to the use of the term
             "mentally incapacitated person" . . . is to make clear
             that in contradistinction to the appointment of a
             guardian . . ., which requires an adjudication of mental
             incapacitation, a guardian ad litem's appointment is
             dependent only upon the allegation of mental
             incapacitation. The guardian ad litem's responsibility
             is to advise the court as to whether a formal competency
             hearing may be necessary and if so, to represent the
             alleged mentally incapacitated person at that hearing.

             [Id. at 278 (quoting Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.
             Court Rules, cmt. 3 on R. 4:26-2 (2020)) (emphasis
             added).]

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                       13
      "Thus, when a guardian ad litem is appointed pursuant to Rule 4:26-2(b)

to represent an individual who is 'alleged' to be mentally incapacitated, the

guardian ad litem's function is to inquire into the individual's alleged mental

incapacity." Ibid. "The role of a guardian ad litem is to act as an independent

investigator and inform the court on the subject of the client's mental capacity."

Ibid. "In that sense, the guardian ad litem serves 'as "the eyes of the court" to

further the [client's] "best interests."'" Ibid. (quoting In re Mason, 305 N.J.

Super. 120, 127 (Ch. Div. 1997)). "After completing its inquiry, the guardian

ad litem submits a report to the court containing the results of the investigation

and recommends whether a formal hearing should proceed under Rule 4:86."

Ibid. "The guardian ad litem's recommendations are not binding on the court;

ultimately the court must make its own independent factfindings." Id. at 278-

79.   "The court should not 'cede [its] responsibility and authority' as the

decisionmaker to the guardian ad litem." Id. at 279 (quoting P.T. v. M.S., 325

N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 1999)).

      "Nothing in our court rules, statutes, or case law suggests that a guardian

ad litem appointed to investigate a client's alleged mental incapacity has the

power to make legal decisions for the client before a judicial determination on

her mental capacity." Ibid. "Rigorous procedural safeguards protect the subject

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                       14
of a guardianship hearing because a finding of incapacity results in an

individual's loss of the right of self-determination." Id. at 280-81. Accordingly,

an action for guardianship of an alleged incapacitated individual and the

proceedings required for a judgment of incapacity are governed by court rule

and statute. R. 4:86-1 to -8; N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24 to -35.

      An action for the appointment of a guardian must comply with Rule 4:86-

2. A guardianship complaint must include two affidavits from properly qualified

medical professionals, stating their opinions about "the extent to which the

alleged incapacitated person is unfit and unable to govern himself or herself and

to manage his or her affairs," R. 4:86-2(b)(2)(F), and "the extent to which the

alleged incapacitated person retains sufficient capacity to retain the right to

manage specific areas, such as . . . legal . . . decisions," R. 4:86-2(b)(2)(G).

Notice of the guardianship hearing must be given to the alleged incapacitated

person, individuals named by that person in a power of attorney or health care

directive, and the person's children. R. 4:86-4(a)(2).

      Our Supreme Court recently explained:

            "If the court is satisfied with the sufficiency of the
            complaint and supporting affidavits and that further
            proceedings" are necessary, the court must (1) set a date
            for the hearing, R. 4:86-4(a)(1); (2) give the alleged
            incapacitated person "at least 20 days' notice" of the
            hearing, R. 4:86-4(a)(2); and (3) advise the person that

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                       15
            if she opposes the action, "she may appear either in
            person or by attorney, and may demand a trial by jury,"
            R. 4:86-4(a)(5). "[T]he trial of the issue of incapacity
            may be had without a jury . . . unless a trial by jury is
            demanded by the alleged incapacitated person or
            someone on his behalf." N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24. "[I]f the
            alleged incapacitated person is not represented by
            counsel," the court must appoint counsel. R. 4:86-
            4(a)(7).

            [S.T., 241 N.J. at 281.]

      Appointed counsel should "interview the alleged incapacitated person," as

well as people who are knowledgeable about the person's circumstances, and

"make reasonable inquiry to locate any will, powers of attorney, or health care

directives previously executed." R. 4:86-4(b)(1). The appointed counsel is also

required to file a report and make recommendations to the court. R. 4:86-

4(b)(2).

      "Unless the alleged incapacitated person requests a jury trial, the court

must take 'testimony in open court' and 'determine the issue of incapacity.'" S.T.,

241 N.J. at 281 (quoting R. 4:86-6(a)). "A finding of incapacity must be made

by clear and convincing evidence." Ibid. "Upon making a finding of incapacity,

the court may appoint a general guardian or a limited guardian, depending on

whether the individual 'lacks the capacity to do some, but not all, of the tasks

necessary to care for himself.'" Id. at 282 (quoting N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24.1(a) to

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                       16
(b)). "A judgment of limited guardianship may specify the limitations upon the

authority of the guardian or alternatively the areas of decision making retained

by the person." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24.1(b)).

      "After determining whether a general or limited guardian is appropriate,

the court must then appoint an individual to serve as the guardian." Ibid. (citing

R. 4:86-6(c)). The court possesses "broad powers and maintains far-reaching

discretion in guardianship appointments . . . ." Mason, 305 N.J. Super. at 128.

                                     III.

      Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied the procedural steps

required by our court rules and statutes were followed in this case.             A

guardianship complaint was filed with notice to A.H.; the complaint was

accompanied by the affidavits of qualified medical professionals; a hearing was

convened, testimony was taken; A.H. was represented by independent counsel;

the trial court made independent findings of fact applying the clear -and-

convincing-evidence standard; and A.H. was adjudicated by the court as

incapacitated with respect to the divorce litigation. The judgment of incapacity

and appointment of A.H.'s guardian thus comported "with the due process

safeguards required by our court rules and statutes." S.T., 241 N.J. at 282.

                                                                            A-2782-21
                                       17
      We emphasize the trial judge made clear and well-articulated credibility

assessments regarding the expert witnesses who testified. "[W]e rely on the trial

court's acceptance of the credibility of the expert's testimony and the court's fact -

finding based thereon, noting that the trial court is better positioned to evaluate

the [expert] witness' credibility, qualifications, and the weight to be accorded

[the] testimony." In re Guardianship of DMH, 161 N.J. 365, 382 (1999). We

find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's determination to accredit the

opinion rendered by Dr. Dyckman, the sole psychiatrist to evaluate A.H., based

on his thorough review of A.H.'s psychiatric history. The trial judge reasoned

his analysis was most consistent with the facts adduced at the trial.

      The trial judge also acted within the ambit of his discretion in discounting

the opinion rendered by A.H.'s expert, Dr. Tegeder, based on the fact that her

evaluation was less thorough than the one performed by Dr. Dyckman. Dr.

Tegeder was also unaware of pertinent facts that might have impacted her

opinion.

      Nor did the trial judge abuse its discretion in placing great weight on

A.H.'s testimony. The judge observed A.H. appeared to become more disturbed

over the course of cross-examination and lashed out with inappropriate and

defensive responses. The judge's thoughtful analysis is consistent with the

                                                                               A-2782-21
                                        18
transcript of A.H.'s testimony. She often refused to acknowledge past events in

the litigation, even when presented with court documents. We thus have no

basis upon which to disturb the trial judge's findings with respect to his direct

observation of A.H.'s testimony.

                                        IV.

      A.H. contends the trial judge erred in failing to order updated medical

evaluations. Rule 4:86-2(b)(2) generally requires that medical evaluations by

experts in support of complaints for guardianship be completed "not more than

[thirty] days prior to the filing of the complaint, but said time period may be

relaxed by the court on an ex parte showing of good cause."

      Dr. Dyckman examined A.H. on February 24, 2021.                  Dr. Davelman

examined A.H. on February 26, 2021 and on March 3, 2021. The guardian ad

litem filed the complaint for guardianship on April 8, 2021, and A.H. requested

a relaxation of the thirty-day rule, which was granted by the court. A.H. does

not challenge the court's initial relaxation of the thirty-day rule.

      However, she argues on appeal that at the time the trial court rendered its

decision on March 31, 2022, the evaluations were over a year old. This delay

was due to adjournments and scheduling conflicts resulting from the COVID-19

pandemic. We are aware of no rule requiring medical evaluations by experts be

                                                                              A-2782-21
                                        19
completed within a certain time period of the guardianship trial. The time

requirement explicitly established in Rule 4:86-2(b)(2) is measured from the

filing of the complaint.

      We see no basis to intervene based on the trial judge's failure to sua sponte

order reevaluations. Importantly, A.H. did not request reevaluations and did not

object to the admission of the medical evaluations by any of the three experts

who testified. Cf. State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (declining "to

consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an

opportunity for such a presentation is available") (quoting Nieder v. Royal

Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)); see also J.K. v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,

247 N.J. 120, 138 n.6 (2021) ( "[W]e have recognized that 'if we allowed 'late-

blooming issues . . . to be raised for the first time on appeal, this would be an

incentive for game-playing by counsel, for acquiescing through silence when

risky rulings are made, and, when they can no longer be corrected at the trial

level, unveiling them as new weapons on appeal.'") (quoting Frank M. Coffin,

On Appeal: Courts, Lawyering, and Judging 84-85 (1994)).

                                        V.

      We turn next to A.H.'s contention the trial judge erred in allowing T.H. to

file an answer and testify at the guardianship hearing. A.H. acknowledges

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                       20
spouses are considered "interested parties" in guardianship actions. However,

she argues that because T.H. attempted to register the divorce decree entered in

Cyprus, he does not consider himself to be A.H.'s spouse and therefore should

not be deemed to be an "interested party."

      A.H. does not cite to any precedent to support that novel argument. Nor

did she object to T.H.'s status as an interested party. As we have noted, the

Cyprus divorce decree was not registered based on A.H.'s objection.

Accordingly, T.H. and A.H. remained legally married in this State. It therefore

was entirely appropriate for purposes of the competency hearing to treat T.H. as

a legal spouse and an interested party.

                                          VI.

      Lastly, we address A.H.'s contention that the court erred by failing to order

reasonable accommodations or less restrictive alternatives to appointmen t of a

guardian, such as allowing A.H. to appear virtually in the divorce action. Rule

4:86-4(b)(iii) provides that counsel for the alleged incapacitated person shall

include in their report to the court "any recommendations concerning the

suitability of less restrictive alternatives. . . ." A.H. acknowledges that no such

recommendation was submitted to the court by A.H.'s competency trial counsel.

In these circumstances, we see no abuse of discretion in the judge's failure to

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                       21
consider whether A.H. would have been competent to participate at a virtual

divorce trial.

      To the extent we have not specifically addressed them, any remaining

arguments raised by appellant in her initial or supplemental briefs lack sufficient

merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                             A-2782-21
                                       22