Court Opinion

ID: 9958142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 13:06:38.241584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:57.645056
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Guardianship of P.S., 2024-Ohio-1310.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                       NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE                   )

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF P. S.                                 C.A. No.   23AP0031

                                                             APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                             ENTERED IN THE
                                                             COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                             COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
                                                             CASE No.   2016 PB-G 000814

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: Aril 8, 2024

        STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant Brittany Smith appeals from the judgment of the Wayne County Probate

Court dismissing her application to be appointed guardian of P.S. (“Ward”) For the reasons set

forth below, this Court affirms.

                                                        I.

        {¶2}     Ms. Smith is Ward’s daughter. Due to long-standing mental health issues, Ward

has had a court-appointed guardian since 1999. The trial court has appointed different guardians

for Ward over the years, including Ms. Smith who served as Ward’s guardian from 2013 until her

2015 removal. Ward’s current guardian is Janesa Furbee, who was appointed in September 2022.

        {¶3}     Ms. Smith filed a pro se application to be appointed Ward’s guardian in June 2023.

Ms. Smith requested in her application that Janesa Furbee be removed as guardian and that she be

appointed as guardian of Ward.
                                                 2

       {¶4}    The trial court dismissed Ms. Smith’s application. In dismissing Ms. Smith’s

application, the trial court found “that a guardian is already appointed for Ms. Smith and there has

been no showing by the applicant that the current guardian warrants removal under the law.” Ms.

Smith appeals the trial court’s judgment entry, asserting five assignments of error for our review.

                                                 II.

                             FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
       ALLOWING WARD TO STAY IN A FACILITY WHERE WARD WAS
       BEING ABUSED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

                            SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED IT[]S DISCRETION BY
       ALLOWING FIRST GUARDIAN TO GOVERN OVER WARD WHEN
       CLEAR SIGN[]S OF ABUSE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT.

                             THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED IT[]S DISCRETION WHEN
       LOWER COURTS[][] USED ERRONEOUS AND BIASED DISCRETION
       NOT TO RELEASE WARD TO FAMILY TO GET PROPER MENTAL AND
       PHYSICAL HELP.

                        FOURTH ERROR OF (SIC) ASSIGNMENT:

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED IT[]S DISCRETION WHEN
       ASSIGNED WARD FOUR DIFFERENT GUARDIAN[]S IN TWO YEARS.

                          FIFTH ERROR OF (SIC) ASSIGNMENT

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
       MOVING WARD TO FIVE DIFFERENT FACILITIES IN NINE MONTH[]S.

       {¶5}    Ms. Smith argues in her assignments of error that the trial court abused its discretion

by allowing Ward to stay in a facility where she was allegedly abused, by allowing the “first

guardian” to govern over Ward, by failing to release Ward to family, by placing four different
                                                  3

guardians for Ward in two years, and by allegedly moving Ward to five different facilities in nine

months. We will address Ms. Smith’s assignments of error together for ease of review.

       {¶6}    Ms. Smith is a pro se litigant. While this Court is sympathetic to pro se litigants,

they are still held to the same standard as attorneys admitted to the practice of law. Zukowski v.

Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 53, 2010-Ohio-1652, ¶ 8. This Court has repeatedly noted that:

       pro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and
       pleadings should be liberally construed so as to decide the issues on the merits, as
       opposed to technicalities. However, a pro se litigant is presumed to have
       knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that [s]he remains subject to
       the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. [She] is
       not given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences
       of [her] mistakes. This Court, therefore, must hold Appellants to the same standard
       as any represented party.

(Citations omitted.) Sherlock v. Myers, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ¶ 3; First

Communications, L.L.C. v. Helms, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28174, 2016-Ohio-7586, ¶ 6; Heller v.

US Bank, N.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25493, 2011-Ohio-1514, ¶ 10.

       {¶7}     The arguments raised in Ms. Smith’s assignments of error do not comply with the

required appellate rules. App.R. 16(A)(7) provides, in relevant part, that the appellant’s brief must

include “[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment

of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the

authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” Ms. Smith’s arguments,

presented under each assignment of error, consist of a single sentence or paragraph. Ms. Smith

does not cite a single authority or cite to any specific portion of the record in support of any of her

assignments of error.

       {¶8}    “An appellant bears the burden of formulating an argument on appeal and

supporting that argument with citations to the record and to legal authority.” King v. Divoky, 9th

Dist. Summit No. 29769, 2021-Ohio-1712, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Watson, 9th Dist. Summit No.
                                                 4

24232, 2009-Ohio-330, ¶ 5. “Moreover, it is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in

support of an assignment of error, even if one exists.” King at ¶ 13, citing Cardone v. Cardone,

9th Dist. Summit No. 18349, 1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6, 1998).

       {¶9}    Ms. Smith has failed to develop an argument and support her position. Ms. Smith

has not demonstrated error on appeal regarding the trial court’s judgment dismissing her

application to be appointed as guardian of the Ward and this Court will not develop an argument

on her behalf. Ms. Smith’s assignments of error are, accordingly, overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶10} For the reasons stated above, Ms. Smith’s assignments of error are overruled. The

judgment of the Wayne County Probate Court is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
                                     5

      Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                         SCOT STEVENSON
                                         FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

BRITTANY SMITH, pro se, Appellant.