Court Opinion

ID: 9898414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:30:33.142384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:18.385765
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          JULY 6, 2023
                                                                 In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                              DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Guardianship of           )
                                               )         No. 39137-0-III
OSTEN DANIEL ZERR                              )
                                               )
                                               )              .
                                               )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                               )

       STAAB, J. — Osten Zerr is an adult subject to a guardianship. His co-guardians

are his biological father, Vincent Zerr, and Vincent’s wife, Julie Zerr. Kava Zerr,1

Osten’s biological mother, has supervised visitation rights and is allowed one video visit

per week with Osten and one in-person supervised visit per month.

       Shortly after Vincent and Julie were appointed as Osten’s guardians, Kava filed

various complaints about the guardians and about the appointed professional visit

supervisor, Peggy Mosshart. In response to Kava’s complaints, the court appointed a

court visitor to investigate the allegations. The court visitor filed a report, a hearing was

held, and the court ultimately decided that no changes needed to be made to the

guardianship order or the order on visits.

       Kava appeals and we affirm.

       1
        The parties are referred to by their first names throughout this opinion for clarity.
No disrespect is intended.
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

                                     BACKGROUND

       Osten’s parents separated when he was a child and his mother, Kava, was named

his primary parent. Nevertheless, the parents continued to disagree about Osten’s care

and custody. When Osten turned 18, the court appointed his father, Vincent, and his

step-mother, Julie, as Osten’s co-guardians. Since then, Kava has been fighting to regain

full custody or control of Osten.

       In December 2021, an order on visitation was entered outlining the procedure

through which Kava could have contact with Osten. According to the order, Kava was

permitted one video visit per week with Osten and two in-person, supervised visits per

month. Mosshart was appointed as the in-person visit supervisor. According to the

order, Mosshart could require Kava to submit to a 12-panel hair follicle test to show that

she was not using illegal substances.2

       In February and May 2022, Kava filed complaints alleging that the guardians and

visit supervisor were interfering with her access to Osten as well as his medical

information. Kava also challenged the visit supervisor’s request that Kava provide a 12-

panel hair follicle test. In response to Kava’s complaints, the court appointed a court

visitor.

       2
      There is evidence in the record that Kava was previously incarcerated for
methamphetamine possession.

                                             2
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

       The court visitor filed her report on May 24, 2022. The court visitor stated that

she was able to speak with Osten’s pediatrician and that he stated he had “no concerns

with Mr. Vincent Zerr and Ms. Julie Zerr and their care of [Osten].” Clerk’s Papers at

197. The court visitor also spoke with records employees who work for one of Osten’s

medical providers. Those employees clarified that, according to the guardianship

paperwork, Kava does not have access to medical records since she is not a guardian.

Finally, the court visitor spoke to the visitor supervisor, Mosshart, who stated that Kava

and Osten’s in-person supervised visits had been occurring at her office and that one visit

had recently been cancelled and made up due to a medical issue with Osten.

       In July 2022, the court held a hearing to address Kava’s complaints. At the

hearing, the court addressed each of Kava’s complaints in turn. In its ruling, the court

made several minor changes to the guardianship order. For instance, the court clarified

that Vincent and Julie needed to provide Kava with medical notes and reports along with

information about Osten’s medical appointments. The court also set some parameters for

Kava’s video visits with Osten. Finally, the court addressed Kava’s complaint that the

professional supervisor, Mosshart, had required her to get a 12-panel hair follicle test.

The court found that the request was within the discretion of Mosshart pursuant to the

order on visits. Other than these minor changes, however, the court made no major

adjustments to the guardianship order.

       Kava filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order.

                                              3
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

                                        ANALYSIS

       The issue raised in Kava Zerr’s pro se brief is difficult to discern. Kava’s only

assignment of error is to the trial court’s refusal to remove the “GAL” from this matter.

Appellant’s Br. at 1. “GAL” is a common acronym for guardian ad litem. Under the

newly enacted Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective

Arrangements Act, ch. 11.130 RCW, guardians ad litem are appointed by the court to

represent the best interests of minors, whereas court visitors are persons appointed by the

court for other specific but limited purposes. See RCW 11.130.010(7) and (12).

“Guardians” on the other hand, are different from guardians ad litem, and include persons

appointed by the court on a more permanent basis to make decisions with respect to the

affairs of an incapacitated person. RCW 11.130.010(11).

       In this case, the court appointed a “guardian ad litem/court visitor” to investigate

the claims made by Kava Zerr against the guardians and the visit supervisor for her adult

son. While Kava claims to be challenging the court’s failure to remove “the GAL,” her

briefing suggests that she may be challenging the court’s failure to remove the guardians.

We give Kava the benefit of the doubt and consider her appeal as challenging the

guardians and the court visitor.

       We review the trial court’s management of the guardianship for abuse of

discretion. Ursich v. Ursich, 10 Wn. App. 2d 263, 271, 448 P.3d 112 (2019) (citing In re

Guardianship of Cornelius, 181 Wn. App. 513, 528, 326 P.3d 718 (2014)). “A trial court

                                             4
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

abuses its discretion only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the

trial court.” Id.

1.     REFUSAL TO REMOVE OSTEN ZERR’S GUARDIANS.

       Kava contends that the court erred when it refused to remove Osten’s “GAL.”

Assuming she is referring to Osten’s co-guardians, Vincent and Julie, we disagree.

       Initially, we note that Osten is an adult and the guardianship proceedings are

controlled by ch. 11.130 RCW. Kava’s citations to the Juvenile Court Act in Cases

Relating to Dependency of a Child and the Termination of a Parent and Child

Relationship, ch. 13.34 RCW, and Dissolution Proceedings, ch. 26.09 RCW are

inapplicable.

       The superior court has the authority to appoint guardians for the persons and/or

estates of incapacitated persons. RCW 11.130.265. An individual who is interested in

the welfare of the individual subject to a guardianship may file a grievance or complaint

against the guardian. RCW 11.130.140(1). Within fourteen days of the complaint being

filed, the court must act according to RCW 11.130.140(2)(c)(i)-(vi). One action a court

may take is appointing a court visitor or other representative to investigate the issues

raised in the complaint. RCW 11.130.140(2)(c)(ii).

       Kava filed complaints about Osten’s guardians in February and May 2022. The

court, pursuant to RCW 11.130.140, appointed a court visitor to investigate the

complaints both times. In May 2022, the court visitor filed her report. The report filed

                                              5
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

by the court visitor found no issues with the care the co-guardians were rendering to

Osten, clarified why Kava did not have access to medical records, and found no issues

with how Kava’s supervised visits had been conducted.

       At the hearing, the court addressed Kava’s access to medical information,

allegations that Osten’s health was declining, and allegations that the guardians and the

visit supervisor were interfering with Kava’s visits with Osten. After discussing Kava’s

complaints and considering the court visitor’s report, the court ruled that the complaints

should not “result in any changes in the guardianship order.” Rep. of Proc. at 36.

       The court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to remove Osten’s

guardians or otherwise change the guardianship order or order on visits following Kava’s

complaints. Kava has failed to demonstrate either a factual or legal reason for removing

the guardians. The court visitor’s report and the argument at the hearing on Kava’s

complaints showed that there was no reason to change either order. Further, the court

took pains to address all of Kava’s complaints, clarify the earlier guardianship order and

order on visits, and come up with amicable resolutions to some of Kava’s complaints

regarding her visits with Osten.

2.     REFUSAL TO REMOVE THE COURT VISITOR

       Assuming Kava is challenging the superior court’s failure to remove the court

visitor, we review this claim and find no abuse of discretion.

                                             6
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

       The superior court appointed a court visitor under RCW 11.130.140(2)(c)(ii) to

investigate the allegations made by Kava against Osten’s guardians. At the hearing

below, Kava did not challenge the appointment of the court visitor, seek to have the court

visitor removed or replaced, and failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in

considering the court visitor’s report.

       In her appeal, Kava argues that the GAL “did not prepare a proper report,” and

then suggests that she is challenging the original petition for Adult Guardianship.

Appellant’s Reply Br. at 4. Kava does not explain how the court visitor’s report was

factually or legally inadequate. At the outset, the court noted that it had reviewed the

court visitor’s report in preparation for the hearing. Kava did not object to the court’s

consideration of the report or argue that it was inadequate. Without a proper objection,

Kava failed to preserve any challenges to the court visitor or her report. See RAP 2.5(a).

To the extent that Kava is challenging the initial superior court order establishing Osten’s

guardianship, this order is not before this court for review.

3.     ATTORNEY FEES

       Vincent and Julie Zerr request attorney fees on appeal or sanctions against Kava

for filing a frivolous appeal. We decline to award attorney fees.

       In their briefing, Vincent and Julie Zerr make a passing request for attorney fees.

RAP 18.1 allows for a party to recover attorney fees on appeal in some cases. However,

RAP 18.1(b) requires more than just a bald request for attorney fees. Thweatt v.

                                              7
No. 39137-0-III
In re Guardianship of Zerr

Hommel, 67 Wn. App. 135, 148, 834 P.2d 1058, review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1016, 844

P.2d 436 (1992). “A request for appellate attorney fees requires a party to include a

separate section in her or his brief devoted to the request.” Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn.

App. 250, 267, 277 P.3d 9 (2012); RAP 18.1(b). Because Vincent and Julie did not

dedicate a section in their brief to the attorney fees issue, they may not recover fees under

RAP 18.1.

       Vincent and Julie also make a request that Kava be sanctioned for filing a

frivolous appeal. We conclude that the appeal is not frivolous and decline to award fees

under this rule.

       Affirmed.

       A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                              _________________________________
                                                      Staab, J.
WE CONCUR:

_________________________________
      Fearing, C.J.

_________________________________
      Siddoway, J.

                                              8