In the Guardianship of N.P., an Incapacitated Person

Summary

This dissenting memorandum opinion addresses whether the evidence supported a full guardianship over N.P., including the removal of her rights to vote, marry, and operate a motor vehicle. Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth concluded that the applicants failed to establish the need for a full guardianship by clear and convincing evidence and that available informal supports and services supported the trial court’s limited guardianship order. She would have affirmed the trial court and disagreed with the majority.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that the applicants failed to present clear and convincing evidence supporting divestiture of those rights, because the evidence consisted primarily of conclusory opinions and answers without underlying facts or reasons.
2. The dissent would hold that the record contained evidence of feasible and available informal supports and services, including assistance from N.P.'s family, and that the applicants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that such alternatives were unavailable or infeasible.
3. The dissent would hold that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by granting a limited guardianship that preserved N.P.'s rights to vote, marry, and operate a motor vehicle.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established that N.P. was incapacitated as to her rights to vote, marry, and operate a motor vehicle and that removing those rights was in her best interests and would protect her rights or property.
2. Whether feasible less restrictive alternatives, including available formal or informal supports and services, were considered and shown by clear and convincing evidence not to avoid the need for a full guardianship.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a limited guardianship rather than a full guardianship.

Disposition

other